I'll take Obamacare for $2000 Alex....
Answer: 6
Question: How many people signed up for Obamacare through Healthcare.gov on its first day?
Now we know why the numbers were not and are still not being officially released.
Healthcare.gov
-
Bubba
- Site Admin
- Posts: 26313
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
- Location: Where the climate suits my clothes
Re: Healthcare.gov
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Re: Healthcare.gov
definitely obama's signature achievement and pretty much the summation of progressive ideology...Bubba wrote:I'll take Obamacare for $2000 Alex....
Answer: 6
Question: How many people signed up for Obamacare through Healthcare.gov on its first day?
Now we know why the numbers were not and are still not being officially released.
COLOSSAL FAILURE
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Re: Healthcare.gov
This post from my favorite blog just about says it all. Obamacare will not only end most peoples current coverage in the individual market but when the delayed employer mandate kicks in in 2015 it will also end many peoples employer plans and they will end up in the exchanges paying more and getting less sooner or later. I bet Obama tries to prevent employers from notifying employees they plan does not comply with the ACA and they are going to dump them into the exchanges until after the 2014 mid-terms although that might be hard since it would leave little time to get into a new plan. Most higher level employees and unions (who are exempt) probably will not get dumped by their employers.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... mented.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Posted on November 1, 2013 by John Hinderaker in Obamacare
Lies of Obamacare, Documented
Over the last day or two, the major breaking story has really been a throwback: in 2010, the Obama administration promulgated rules governing what plans that pre-existed Obamacare would be “grandfathered” under that statute, and allowed to continue. In the context of announcing its rules, the administration predicted that because of their restrictiveness, many millions of Americans would lose their existing insurance coverage, whether they liked it or not. Further, it has been widely reported (as by CNN, here) that Republicans tried to reverse the administration’s “grandfather” rules so that those who liked their insurance would be allowed to keep it, but Senate Democrats voted them down.
Given the lies with which Obamacare was promoted–”If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”–this is of course a blockbuster story. So I spent some time today tracking down the original sources to verify it.
The Obamacare statute provided that plans pre-existing the law would be allowed to continue, but left the details to future administrative action. That came on June 17, 2010, when the Obama administration–specifically, the Departments of the Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services–promulgated “Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” You can read the rules here; scroll down to Part II.
The basic idea underlying the rules is that if the pre-existing plans remained unchanged, they could continue. If, however, there was any significant change in coverages, co-pays, and so on, then the plan would become subject to all of the requirements of Obamacare (even grandfathered plans are subject to a number of Obamacare requirements). The problem is that the health insurance market is constantly changing, and it is typical for plans to change, to some degree, from year to year. So the administration looked at historical data to estimate how many employer-sponsored and individual plans would likely lose their grandfather status once Obamacare was implemented. The administration’s methodology can certainly be questioned, but the results were as has been reported. This chart sums them up; click to enlarge:
FederalRegister092
The Obama administration projected low-end, mid-range and high-end estimates for how many plans would be terminated, in total and broken down between large and smaller employers. The bottom line is that the administration expected 51% of all employer plans to be terminated as a result of Obamacare. That is the mid-range estimate; the high-end estimate was 69%. So as of 2010, the Obama administration planned that most Americans with employer-sponsored health care plans would lose them, whether they liked those plans or not.
As for individual, as opposed to group plans, the Obama administration said that data were insufficient to predict how many would lose grandfather status, but in any given year the percentage of such policies losing such status would “exceed[] the 40 percent to 67 percent range.”
Those numbers starkly contradict Obama’s “if you like your insurance, you can keep it” assurances. But it is worth noting that the percentage of pre-Obamacare plans that would terminate within the first few years after the law was enacted isn’t the main point. The administration never intended to allow any American to keep a non-Obamacare insurance policy for any length of time. In the Federal Register, the administration candidly acknowledged:
The collective decisions of plan sponsors and issuers over time can be viewed as a one-way sorting process in which these parties decide whether, and when, to relinquish status as a grandfathered health plan.
The administration was prepared to be patient as the “one-way sorting process” ran its course, and all Americans lost the plans they had, whether they liked them or not.
That brings us to September 29, 2010, when Senate Republicans brought to the floor a resolution that would have disapproved of, and reversed, the administrative rules that the Obama administration promulgated on June 17. Wyoming’s Mike Enzi sponsored the resolution; the debate that followed is here. Enzi introduced his resolution:
Mr. President, the resolution we are debating today is about keeping a promise. The authors of the new health care law promised the American people that if they liked their current health insurance, they could keep it. On at least 47 separate occasions, President Obama promised: “If you like what you have, you can keep it.”
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has broken that promise. Earlier this year, the administration published a regulation that will fundamentally change the health insurance plans of millions of Americans. The reality of this new regulation is, if you like what you have, you can’t keep it. The new regulation implemented the grandfathered health plan section of the new health care law. It specified how existing health plans could avoid the most onerous new rules and redtape included in the 2,700 pages of the new health care law. …
Unfortunately, the regulation writers at the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services broke all those promises. The regulation is crystal clear. Most businesses–the administration estimates between 39 and 69 percent–will not be able to keep the coverage they have.
Under the new regulation, once a business loses grandfathered status, they will have to comply with all of the new mandates in the law. This means these businesses will have to change their current plans and purchase more expensive ones that meet all of the new Federal minimum requirements. For the 80 percent of small businesses that will lose their grandfathered status because of this regulation, the net result is clear: They will pay more for their health insurance.
Does this give you a sense of deja vu, or what? The baleful consequences of Obamacare that we are now seeing–there are many more to come–were known and foreseen in 2010. The Democrats voted down the Republicans’ effort to preserve the health care plans that Americans already like on a party-line vote. The Democrats knew that Obama had been lying through his teeth, and they voted unanimously to sustain his lies.
Did the Democrats have a theory? Sure. They argued that if a health care plan changes significantly, then it isn’t the plan you originally bought. And it is common in a variety of contexts for something that is grandfathered to lose that status if it is changed significantly. But there are several problems with the Democrats’ theory: First, it was entirely different from the assurances Obama gave the American people. You may like your insurance perfectly well after a modest change; you may like it better. But that is irrelevant: if the Obama administration thinks your coverage has changed materially, you lose it. Period. Second, it isn’t true that plans lose their grandfathered status only if they are changed in a major way. For example, if there is any increase in the co-insurance rate, no matter how small, the plan terminates.
Even more significant is the fact that under the administration’s regulations, the plan may stay exactly the same, but if one insurance carrier replaces another, the plan loses its grandfathered status and terminates. The effect of this provision is to eliminate competition and make it less attractive, over time, to maintain pre-existing plans. The Republicans read several letters from business groups into the record, at least one of which pointed out the importance of this provision.
Finally, it should be noted that John McCain, now the bete noire of some activists, weighed in powerfully against the administration’s Obamacare rules. Among other things, he pointed out that they do not apply to unions. They can negotiate changes in the pre-Obamacare plans that cover their members without having them terminate. This is one of the weird features of gangster government: the administration passes terrible laws, and then excuses its friends from complying with them. Let’s turn the floor over to McCain:
Mr. ENZI: According to the administration, in small businesses, 80 percent of the people–unless this [Republican resolution] is passed–will lose the insurance they have and like, and in all businesses 69 percent will. Those are not my numbers; those are the administration’s numbers.
Mr. McCAIN: But isn’t it also true that is the case for small business and people and entrepreneurs all over America except the unions? Isn’t that true? Isn’t this a carve-out again, part of this sleaze that went into putting this bill together, part of the “Cornhusker kickback,” the “Louisiana purchase,” the buying of PhRMA–all that went into this–the “negotiations” that were going to take place on C-SPAN that the President said during the Presidential campaign that went from one sweetheart deal cut to another. Part of one of those sweetheart deals was the unions are exempt; is that correct?
Mr. ENZI. That is correct.
So it’s the usual toxic stew of lies, corruption and incompetence that we have come to expect from Barack Obama. But one last point should not go unmentioned: where has the press been in all of this? As of 2010, it was blindingly obvious–was baldly stated by the Obama administration itself–that under Obamacare, far from being permitted to keep your health care coverage if you like it, most Americans’ policies would speedily be terminated, and all would soon cease to exist. Given the dozens of misrepresentations by Barack Obama and other members of his administration, and given the entirely dishonest basis on which Obamacare was rammed through the Democratic Congress without a single Republican vote, and given that Republicans’ warnings were indisputably coming true–was there not a news story here? How can it be that three more years went by before our one-party media thought to mention what happened back in 2010? One can only imagine how the 2012 election might have been different if the electorate had understood that Obamacare was sold on a scaffold of lies.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... mented.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Posted on November 1, 2013 by John Hinderaker in Obamacare
Lies of Obamacare, Documented
Over the last day or two, the major breaking story has really been a throwback: in 2010, the Obama administration promulgated rules governing what plans that pre-existed Obamacare would be “grandfathered” under that statute, and allowed to continue. In the context of announcing its rules, the administration predicted that because of their restrictiveness, many millions of Americans would lose their existing insurance coverage, whether they liked it or not. Further, it has been widely reported (as by CNN, here) that Republicans tried to reverse the administration’s “grandfather” rules so that those who liked their insurance would be allowed to keep it, but Senate Democrats voted them down.
Given the lies with which Obamacare was promoted–”If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”–this is of course a blockbuster story. So I spent some time today tracking down the original sources to verify it.
The Obamacare statute provided that plans pre-existing the law would be allowed to continue, but left the details to future administrative action. That came on June 17, 2010, when the Obama administration–specifically, the Departments of the Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services–promulgated “Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” You can read the rules here; scroll down to Part II.
The basic idea underlying the rules is that if the pre-existing plans remained unchanged, they could continue. If, however, there was any significant change in coverages, co-pays, and so on, then the plan would become subject to all of the requirements of Obamacare (even grandfathered plans are subject to a number of Obamacare requirements). The problem is that the health insurance market is constantly changing, and it is typical for plans to change, to some degree, from year to year. So the administration looked at historical data to estimate how many employer-sponsored and individual plans would likely lose their grandfather status once Obamacare was implemented. The administration’s methodology can certainly be questioned, but the results were as has been reported. This chart sums them up; click to enlarge:
FederalRegister092
The Obama administration projected low-end, mid-range and high-end estimates for how many plans would be terminated, in total and broken down between large and smaller employers. The bottom line is that the administration expected 51% of all employer plans to be terminated as a result of Obamacare. That is the mid-range estimate; the high-end estimate was 69%. So as of 2010, the Obama administration planned that most Americans with employer-sponsored health care plans would lose them, whether they liked those plans or not.
As for individual, as opposed to group plans, the Obama administration said that data were insufficient to predict how many would lose grandfather status, but in any given year the percentage of such policies losing such status would “exceed[] the 40 percent to 67 percent range.”
Those numbers starkly contradict Obama’s “if you like your insurance, you can keep it” assurances. But it is worth noting that the percentage of pre-Obamacare plans that would terminate within the first few years after the law was enacted isn’t the main point. The administration never intended to allow any American to keep a non-Obamacare insurance policy for any length of time. In the Federal Register, the administration candidly acknowledged:
The collective decisions of plan sponsors and issuers over time can be viewed as a one-way sorting process in which these parties decide whether, and when, to relinquish status as a grandfathered health plan.
The administration was prepared to be patient as the “one-way sorting process” ran its course, and all Americans lost the plans they had, whether they liked them or not.
That brings us to September 29, 2010, when Senate Republicans brought to the floor a resolution that would have disapproved of, and reversed, the administrative rules that the Obama administration promulgated on June 17. Wyoming’s Mike Enzi sponsored the resolution; the debate that followed is here. Enzi introduced his resolution:
Mr. President, the resolution we are debating today is about keeping a promise. The authors of the new health care law promised the American people that if they liked their current health insurance, they could keep it. On at least 47 separate occasions, President Obama promised: “If you like what you have, you can keep it.”
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has broken that promise. Earlier this year, the administration published a regulation that will fundamentally change the health insurance plans of millions of Americans. The reality of this new regulation is, if you like what you have, you can’t keep it. The new regulation implemented the grandfathered health plan section of the new health care law. It specified how existing health plans could avoid the most onerous new rules and redtape included in the 2,700 pages of the new health care law. …
Unfortunately, the regulation writers at the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services broke all those promises. The regulation is crystal clear. Most businesses–the administration estimates between 39 and 69 percent–will not be able to keep the coverage they have.
Under the new regulation, once a business loses grandfathered status, they will have to comply with all of the new mandates in the law. This means these businesses will have to change their current plans and purchase more expensive ones that meet all of the new Federal minimum requirements. For the 80 percent of small businesses that will lose their grandfathered status because of this regulation, the net result is clear: They will pay more for their health insurance.
Does this give you a sense of deja vu, or what? The baleful consequences of Obamacare that we are now seeing–there are many more to come–were known and foreseen in 2010. The Democrats voted down the Republicans’ effort to preserve the health care plans that Americans already like on a party-line vote. The Democrats knew that Obama had been lying through his teeth, and they voted unanimously to sustain his lies.
Did the Democrats have a theory? Sure. They argued that if a health care plan changes significantly, then it isn’t the plan you originally bought. And it is common in a variety of contexts for something that is grandfathered to lose that status if it is changed significantly. But there are several problems with the Democrats’ theory: First, it was entirely different from the assurances Obama gave the American people. You may like your insurance perfectly well after a modest change; you may like it better. But that is irrelevant: if the Obama administration thinks your coverage has changed materially, you lose it. Period. Second, it isn’t true that plans lose their grandfathered status only if they are changed in a major way. For example, if there is any increase in the co-insurance rate, no matter how small, the plan terminates.
Even more significant is the fact that under the administration’s regulations, the plan may stay exactly the same, but if one insurance carrier replaces another, the plan loses its grandfathered status and terminates. The effect of this provision is to eliminate competition and make it less attractive, over time, to maintain pre-existing plans. The Republicans read several letters from business groups into the record, at least one of which pointed out the importance of this provision.
Finally, it should be noted that John McCain, now the bete noire of some activists, weighed in powerfully against the administration’s Obamacare rules. Among other things, he pointed out that they do not apply to unions. They can negotiate changes in the pre-Obamacare plans that cover their members without having them terminate. This is one of the weird features of gangster government: the administration passes terrible laws, and then excuses its friends from complying with them. Let’s turn the floor over to McCain:
Mr. ENZI: According to the administration, in small businesses, 80 percent of the people–unless this [Republican resolution] is passed–will lose the insurance they have and like, and in all businesses 69 percent will. Those are not my numbers; those are the administration’s numbers.
Mr. McCAIN: But isn’t it also true that is the case for small business and people and entrepreneurs all over America except the unions? Isn’t that true? Isn’t this a carve-out again, part of this sleaze that went into putting this bill together, part of the “Cornhusker kickback,” the “Louisiana purchase,” the buying of PhRMA–all that went into this–the “negotiations” that were going to take place on C-SPAN that the President said during the Presidential campaign that went from one sweetheart deal cut to another. Part of one of those sweetheart deals was the unions are exempt; is that correct?
Mr. ENZI. That is correct.
So it’s the usual toxic stew of lies, corruption and incompetence that we have come to expect from Barack Obama. But one last point should not go unmentioned: where has the press been in all of this? As of 2010, it was blindingly obvious–was baldly stated by the Obama administration itself–that under Obamacare, far from being permitted to keep your health care coverage if you like it, most Americans’ policies would speedily be terminated, and all would soon cease to exist. Given the dozens of misrepresentations by Barack Obama and other members of his administration, and given the entirely dishonest basis on which Obamacare was rammed through the Democratic Congress without a single Republican vote, and given that Republicans’ warnings were indisputably coming true–was there not a news story here? How can it be that three more years went by before our one-party media thought to mention what happened back in 2010? One can only imagine how the 2012 election might have been different if the electorate had understood that Obamacare was sold on a scaffold of lies.
Re: Healthcare.gov
CBS: White House ignored adviser's 2010 warning it was 'losing control of ObamaCare'
http://www.caintv.com/cbs-adviser-warned-white-house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"David Cutler, who worked on the Obama 2008 campaign and was a valued outside health care consultant wrote this blunt memo to top White House economic adviser Larry Summers in May 2010: "I do not believe the relevant members of the administration understand the president's vision or have the capability to carry it out."
Cutler wrote no one was in charge who had any experience in complex business start-ups. He also worried basic regulations, technology and policy coordination would fail.
"You need to have people who have understanding of the political process, people who understand how to work within an administration and people who understand how to start and build a business, and unfortunately, they just didn't get all of those people together," Cutler said.
The White House dismissed these and other warnings. It relied on appointed bureaucrats and senior White House health care advisers. Fearful of constant attacks from congressional Republicans, the White House became secretive about the law's complexity and regulatory reach."
not in the least surprised...
http://www.caintv.com/cbs-adviser-warned-white-house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"David Cutler, who worked on the Obama 2008 campaign and was a valued outside health care consultant wrote this blunt memo to top White House economic adviser Larry Summers in May 2010: "I do not believe the relevant members of the administration understand the president's vision or have the capability to carry it out."
Cutler wrote no one was in charge who had any experience in complex business start-ups. He also worried basic regulations, technology and policy coordination would fail.
"You need to have people who have understanding of the political process, people who understand how to work within an administration and people who understand how to start and build a business, and unfortunately, they just didn't get all of those people together," Cutler said.
The White House dismissed these and other warnings. It relied on appointed bureaucrats and senior White House health care advisers. Fearful of constant attacks from congressional Republicans, the White House became secretive about the law's complexity and regulatory reach."
not in the least surprised...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
-
shortski
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8067
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 07:28
- Location: Between the Dark and the Daylight
- Contact:
Re: Healthcare.gov
And Obama just found out about it because of the news reporting it.
Stop blaming Obama for everything. It's Bush's fault. Get back on message or face the drones.
Stop blaming Obama for everything. It's Bush's fault. Get back on message or face the drones.
Cogito, ergo sum
Sometimes it is that simple.
Sometimes it is that simple.
Re: Healthcare.gov
As unbelievable as it sounds Obama actually did say he found about the IRS and the Obamacare website failure by watching the news. What Republican would ever get away with that explanation.And Obama just found out about it because of the news reporting it.
-
steamboat1
- Post Office
- Posts: 4540
- Joined: Sep 12th, '11, 21:53
- Location: Brooklyn, NY/Pittsford,VT
Re: Healthcare.gov
I'm surprised he even watches the news. You know with his busy schedule of golfing, fund raising & late night parties at the White House.
Re: Healthcare.gov
will it ever end???
Obama lied again. Phone and mail signups aren't working either
"Sure, the website was a mess, but the President offered Americans another path to the quality, affordable, healthcare most of them already had. You could sign up by phone, he said, and the process would only take about a half hour. If that didn't work for you, there was always the good, old-fashioned post office. A snail mail application would still get the job done, whether Healthcare.gov was working or not.
Then, President Infomercial's phone line crashed, while the paper applications have languished in the same, purgatorial limbo that has afflicted the website. Obama must be furious. After all, there was no way he could have known that the mail and phone methods were just as terrible as the website, right?
Actually, according to ABC News, he did know. ...and he knew at least 10 days before the October 21st Rose Garden pep rally."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... emos-note/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Anticipating the next ObamaCare problems that will be someone else's fault
http://www.caintv.com/anticipating-the-next-obamacar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Liberals like to pass laws that they envision working in theory, provided all kinds of people behave in exactly the manner liberals think they should. But because liberals are not as smart as they think they are, they are constantly surprised when people don't want to behave according to the liberal plan, and find ways not to do so. Then the liberals become incensed and blame these people for spoiling their perfectly brilliant plans."
Now that trick won;t fly so it;s time for the next version: Having the foresight to see thru the pisspoor plans of the left and pointing out the obvious impending failure is akin to cheering for failure and thus causes failure by decree, thus it is republicans, tea party and any other naysayers fault that obamacare is a colossal failure, after all they were " cheering" for it to fail by simply pointing out its obvious shortfalls...
but it never stops em from thinking:
"It would have worked if only all you [ inferior minded] people had done exactly what we [superior psuedo intellectuals] wanted you to do!"
Obama lied again. Phone and mail signups aren't working either
"Sure, the website was a mess, but the President offered Americans another path to the quality, affordable, healthcare most of them already had. You could sign up by phone, he said, and the process would only take about a half hour. If that didn't work for you, there was always the good, old-fashioned post office. A snail mail application would still get the job done, whether Healthcare.gov was working or not.
Then, President Infomercial's phone line crashed, while the paper applications have languished in the same, purgatorial limbo that has afflicted the website. Obama must be furious. After all, there was no way he could have known that the mail and phone methods were just as terrible as the website, right?
Actually, according to ABC News, he did know. ...and he knew at least 10 days before the October 21st Rose Garden pep rally."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... emos-note/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Anticipating the next ObamaCare problems that will be someone else's fault
http://www.caintv.com/anticipating-the-next-obamacar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Liberals like to pass laws that they envision working in theory, provided all kinds of people behave in exactly the manner liberals think they should. But because liberals are not as smart as they think they are, they are constantly surprised when people don't want to behave according to the liberal plan, and find ways not to do so. Then the liberals become incensed and blame these people for spoiling their perfectly brilliant plans."
Now that trick won;t fly so it;s time for the next version: Having the foresight to see thru the pisspoor plans of the left and pointing out the obvious impending failure is akin to cheering for failure and thus causes failure by decree, thus it is republicans, tea party and any other naysayers fault that obamacare is a colossal failure, after all they were " cheering" for it to fail by simply pointing out its obvious shortfalls...
but it never stops em from thinking:
"It would have worked if only all you [ inferior minded] people had done exactly what we [superior psuedo intellectuals] wanted you to do!"
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
-
Bubba
- Site Admin
- Posts: 26313
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
- Location: Where the climate suits my clothes
Re: Healthcare.gov
Business Week magazine must be reading KZone. On their cover this week about the Healthcare.gov mess they use the phrase "Epic Fail".
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... y#r=hpt-ls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... y#r=hpt-ls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
-
Bubba
- Site Admin
- Posts: 26313
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
- Location: Where the climate suits my clothes
Re: Healthcare.gov
Obamacare IT chief out but who would hire him after this fiasco?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101176329" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101176329" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
-
XtremeJibber2001
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
Re: Healthcare.gov
He was the CIO and probably sat on the steering committee and communicated (or didn't) what he saw to Sebelius. Who knows what she did or didn't do with the information. I don't think the CIO's involvement would preclude him from private sector jobs especially considering his connections. Lots of defense / gov contractors would be pushing and shoving to get him on their team.Bubba wrote:Obamacare IT chief out but who would hire him after this fiasco?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101176329" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
steamboat1
- Post Office
- Posts: 4540
- Joined: Sep 12th, '11, 21:53
- Location: Brooklyn, NY/Pittsford,VT
-
shortski
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8067
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 07:28
- Location: Between the Dark and the Daylight
- Contact:
Re: Healthcare.gov
Funny if it wasn't so sad. You also showed how easy it is to set up a spoof site to steal people's information. The government site still does not have a permanent security certificate. Additionally, according to testemony in congress, the goverment "navigators" are not even vetted by doing background checks, but they're looking into it.
Anyone who use the site is taking a real risk of having their identity stolen. Until they take the steps necessary to secure a full security certificate and do full background checks on anyone having access to personal information I would not use the site or apply for the insurance. The fine is a much better option of giving your personal information and watching it disappear into the government black hole.
Anyone who use the site is taking a real risk of having their identity stolen. Until they take the steps necessary to secure a full security certificate and do full background checks on anyone having access to personal information I would not use the site or apply for the insurance. The fine is a much better option of giving your personal information and watching it disappear into the government black hole.
Cogito, ergo sum
Sometimes it is that simple.
Sometimes it is that simple.
Re: Healthcare.gov
BHO “What we intended to do…is to make sure that everybody is moving into better plans because they want ’em, as opposed to because they’re forced into it.”
which is why we created the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE and have refused to back down on it, or even delay it...
boy ya gotta be one dumb $hit to buy that line of cr@p...
which is why we created the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE and have refused to back down on it, or even delay it...
boy ya gotta be one dumb $hit to buy that line of cr@p...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Re: Healthcare.gov
Obama is "sorry" some will lose their health insurance and "mis-understood" his promise! The Obama administration itself estimated that 50-67% of individual policies would be cancelled as a result of the law. They also estimate 60+% of employer insurance will be cancelled when the employer mandate kicks in in 2015. Perhaps that is why they delayed it 1 year because the Democrats would have been crushed in the 2014 mid-term congressional elections if tens of millions lost their employer based insurance and got dumped into the malfunctioning Obamacare exchanges. What a joke. These guys say it well:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... it-say.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A “lying apology,” but what did it say?
John does a an excellent job of showing that President Obama’s “apology” regarding Obamacare merely attempts to perpetuate the administration’s cover-up effort. But what exactly did Obama apologize for?
Here is the main apology sentence:
I am sorry that they [i.e., people who have lost their insurance plan] are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.
But no one lost insurance coverage because of Obama’s assurances that they wouldn’t lose it. They lost their coverage by the natural operation of Obamacare.
Obama is probably saying — insincerely — that he’s sorry people find themselves in the situation of having lost their health insurance and are surprised about it due to his assurances that this wouldn’t happen. Indeed, Obama can’t plausibly say he’s sorry merely for the loss of insurance coverage since (1) he has insisted that losing these “bad apple” plans is a good thing and (2) the law was designed so that people would lose coverage.
My interpretation is consistent with the “regret” Obama expresses in the same paragraph:
I regret very much that what we intended to do, which was to make sure that everybody is moving into better plans because they want them as opposed to because they are forced into it, but we weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place. . .
So again, the “regret” is over people being surprised — ambushed, really — due to the administration’s lack of clarity.
But, Obama had to ambush people. If he had spoken honestly about the effect of Obamacare on existing coverage before Congress voted on it, the law wouldn’t have been enacted. If he had spoken honestly afterwards, he would have suffered immense political damage and jeopardized his reelection.
The real question, of course, is whether Obama’s “apology” will help him and his Party. I don’t think it will. The apology is too garbled. It sounds too much like what it is — a politician attempting to squirm out of a lie.
Moreover, this statement from the same interview may come back to haunt Obama:
We are talking about 5% of the population who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own. And even though it only affects a small amount of the population, it means a lot to them, obviously to get this letter canceled.
But, as John says, this 5 percent is only the tip of the iceberg. Once employer plans begin to be cancelled en masse, Obama will be seen to have doubled-down on deception, rather than coming clean in an interview in which he purports to do so.
Voters probably will want to know why their president, when apologizing for not having explained in advance to folks in the individual market that they would lose their coverage, misled folks in employer plans into believing that the problem did not extend to them.
Most will conclude, or be reinforced in their belief, that Obama is an inveterate dissembler.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... it-say.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A “lying apology,” but what did it say?
John does a an excellent job of showing that President Obama’s “apology” regarding Obamacare merely attempts to perpetuate the administration’s cover-up effort. But what exactly did Obama apologize for?
Here is the main apology sentence:
I am sorry that they [i.e., people who have lost their insurance plan] are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.
But no one lost insurance coverage because of Obama’s assurances that they wouldn’t lose it. They lost their coverage by the natural operation of Obamacare.
Obama is probably saying — insincerely — that he’s sorry people find themselves in the situation of having lost their health insurance and are surprised about it due to his assurances that this wouldn’t happen. Indeed, Obama can’t plausibly say he’s sorry merely for the loss of insurance coverage since (1) he has insisted that losing these “bad apple” plans is a good thing and (2) the law was designed so that people would lose coverage.
My interpretation is consistent with the “regret” Obama expresses in the same paragraph:
I regret very much that what we intended to do, which was to make sure that everybody is moving into better plans because they want them as opposed to because they are forced into it, but we weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place. . .
So again, the “regret” is over people being surprised — ambushed, really — due to the administration’s lack of clarity.
But, Obama had to ambush people. If he had spoken honestly about the effect of Obamacare on existing coverage before Congress voted on it, the law wouldn’t have been enacted. If he had spoken honestly afterwards, he would have suffered immense political damage and jeopardized his reelection.
The real question, of course, is whether Obama’s “apology” will help him and his Party. I don’t think it will. The apology is too garbled. It sounds too much like what it is — a politician attempting to squirm out of a lie.
Moreover, this statement from the same interview may come back to haunt Obama:
We are talking about 5% of the population who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own. And even though it only affects a small amount of the population, it means a lot to them, obviously to get this letter canceled.
But, as John says, this 5 percent is only the tip of the iceberg. Once employer plans begin to be cancelled en masse, Obama will be seen to have doubled-down on deception, rather than coming clean in an interview in which he purports to do so.
Voters probably will want to know why their president, when apologizing for not having explained in advance to folks in the individual market that they would lose their coverage, misled folks in employer plans into believing that the problem did not extend to them.
Most will conclude, or be reinforced in their belief, that Obama is an inveterate dissembler.