Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (3 Viewers)

[The Commish]

Okay, answer this question as if I am a dummy (shouldn't be hard), what is agile?

I am an accountant not a software programmer or consultant. I would love to have some idea what you guys are talking about.

It's a PM approach where you do a bunch of mini "sprints" and deploy small amounts of code/application throughout a period of time instead of doing very large releases that have many changes deployed at once. If you have a project in a typcial "waterfall" methodology and you have 15 requirements to your project, you set a period of XX weeks in the release. During that time you code all the requirements and add them to the test env....near the end of the release schedule everything is tested as once and rolled out at once. In agile, you may have a sprint where you code 3 requirements, test them, then roll them out....then the following you might have 8 items, you test them and then roll them out. By the end all 15 have been deployed and tested. Make sense?

Yes, thanks for your input. Is the advantage of agile that you have a better idea of what needs correcting quicker because you test fewer things at a time and therefore there are fewer thngs that could be failing?

I'm not a big agile fan, so the "advantages" are lost on me a little bit However, I believe it's along those lines. You don't hold up the whole project because of one or two issues etc.

 

[Joe T]

This has been a disaster, but no more than any private company doing it would have been.

I would have put a large wager that google would have done less of a disaster than this.

 

[roadkill1292]

This is fixable, right? Christ, the government doesn't fail at everything it does, it runs a fairly large pension system IIRC, at some point in time it should be able to do what every other industrialized nation in the world manages routinely.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Looks like a delay in the individual mandate may be in the works...

new: senior dem source tells me to expect every sen dem running in 2014 to back @JeanneShaheen proposal to delay #ACA enrollment deadline

https://twitter.com/DanaBashCNN/status/393110100153352192

 

[ffldrew]

Okay, answer this question as if I am a dummy (shouldn't be hard), what is agile?

I am an accountant not a software programmer or consultant. I would love to have some idea what you guys are talking about.

It's a PM approach where you do a bunch of mini "sprints" and deploy small amounts of code/application throughout a period of time instead of doing very large releases that have many changes deployed at once. If you have a project in a typcial "waterfall" methodology and you have 15 requirements to your project, you set a period of XX weeks in the release. During that time you code all the requirements and add them to the test env....near the end of the release schedule everything is tested as once and rolled out at once. In agile, you may have a sprint where you code 3 requirements, test them, then roll them out....then the following you might have 8 items, you test them and then roll them out. By the end all 15 have been deployed and tested. Make sense?

Yes, thanks for your input. Is the advantage of agile that you have a better idea of what needs correcting quicker because you test fewer things at a time and therefore there are fewer thngs that could be failing?

I'm not a big agile fan, so the "advantages" are lost on me a little bit However, I believe it's along those lines. You don't hold up the whole project because of one or two issues etc.

The real benefit - in my opinion is that you see working software more often in the process that the end user gives you feedback on - "are you meeting the requirements" . Typical old school waterfall projects spend time on requirement gatherings and then code development that don't reveal the problems in the requirements soon enough. The garbage in of the bad requirements results in garbage out applications - but sometimes it is revealed much later(or too late) and makes it difficult to recover a schedule.

There is also truth in the working software - developers can't come up with excuses as to why it is not working as easily. You are tasked to get something built - you gotta build it. Also the people developing do more of the determination of how long it will take to develop and deliver. If problems arise - adjustments are easier to make on a daily basis of the small task - versus it getting revealed later as it affects other parts of the project.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Okay, answer this question as if I am a dummy (shouldn't be hard), what is agile?

I am an accountant not a software programmer or consultant. I would love to have some idea what you guys are talking about.

It's a PM approach where you do a bunch of mini "sprints" and deploy small amounts of code/application throughout a period of time instead of doing very large releases that have many changes deployed at once. If you have a project in a typcial "waterfall" methodology and you have 15 requirements to your project, you set a period of XX weeks in the release. During that time you code all the requirements and add them to the test env....near the end of the release schedule everything is tested as once and rolled out at once. In agile, you may have a sprint where you code 3 requirements, test them, then roll them out....then the following you might have 8 items, you test them and then roll them out. By the end all 15 have been deployed and tested. Make sense?

Yes, thanks for your input. Is the advantage of agile that you have a better idea of what needs correcting quicker because you test fewer things at a time and therefore there are fewer thngs that could be failing?

I'm not a big agile fan, so the "advantages" are lost on me a little bit However, I believe it's along those lines. You don't hold up the whole project because of one or two issues etc.

The real benefit - in my opinion is that you see working software more often in the process that the end user gives you feedback on - "are you meeting the requirements" . Typical old school waterfall projects spend time on requirement gatherings and then code development that don't reveal the problems in the requirements soon enough. The garbage in of the bad requirements results in garbage out applications - but sometimes it is revealed much later(or too late) and makes it difficult to recover a schedule.

There is also truth in the working software - developers can't come up with excuses as to why it is not working as easily. You are tasked to get something built - you gotta build it. Also the people developing do more of the determination of how long it will take to develop and deliver. If problems arise - adjustments are easier to make on a daily basis of the small task - versus it getting revealed later as it affects other parts of the project.

One of the recommendations of using Agile is the IT organization and the business (govt) needs to be in close contact constantly. I'm not sure how the govt operated, if they just threw them the requirements or if they were working with them on a daily basis. CGI isn't the only one at fault. The govt was late on almost every deadline on publishing the guidelines of ACA to build into the website.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Ideally - Dev-Integration-QA-Test-Prod - and Developers/Teams with a POC environment each.
Everything is virtualized - either in the cloud or on big iron. Environments are snapshotted and move up and done the chain depending on the situations - and sometimes there are 2 or more "Dev" environments.

And do you have all the components to each env? Meaning same hardware, database sizes, amount of data, switches, firewalls, routers etc? This is what I think it takes, but our infrastructure folks whine about it costing too much money. It's a very expensive methodology to architect....they don't seem to get that. So, we have a dev, uatnext (future releases going in) uatnow (copy of prod for "troubleshooting), prod and dr. The only two envs that come close to functioning the same are uatnext and prod. I believe THAT's our problem. You're just confirming my thoughts that our infrastructure isn't close to being what it needs to be. I can't imagine how much it'd cost to get the right amt of envs up to support this process the correct way.

Lots of ways to reduce costs in all of these areas. We have Sandbox, DEV, QA, PRD, DR and they're all basically alike. From my perspective, they're identical but I can't vouch for what you Dev and Application guys do to ruin all of that after I hand it off. You want another environment? No problem, I can put together most of it in minutes. Identical to these. You want an exact copy of your production database attached to it as well? Alright, but that'll take another minute or two. And I'm literally the only guy managing this infrastructure for a billion dollar manufacturing firm. I don't know how you guys can have teams of people that can't get this right.

I'd think it's much easier if one had control over everything. We don't have that luxury because of federal guidelines. We aren't allowed to do our own authentication, another group does that. We aren't allowed to do our data loads either...another group does that. Seems like apples and oranges here, but glad it's simple for you. Though I'm not sure it's smart for a company to have a single person on the hook for network (routers, firewalls, switches etc), server, database, performance, app servers, web servers etc. By law we have to have different groups for all these things (separation of duties).

No, I agree it's entirely stupid, I've told them as much. Couple in the fact that I don't even like my boss/job and they're playing with fire. They're bribing me to stick around with large bonuses right now.

Definitely agree that it's a lot easier when you have full control over a number of areas as well. Like I said, I can't really vouch for what happens after I hand environments off. The best way to describe our environment is virtually unmanaged, and ultimately the people I hand my stuff off to aren't very good, barely understand a word I say because they're years behind on technology, and it limits how much impact what I do has on the company. Doesn't matter much that I can roll out an environment in minutes when the teams behind me aren't positioned well to take advantage of it and have to hire teams of consultants to do their jobs constantly.

Is it possible we work for the same company?

 

[The Commish]

This has been a disaster, but no more than any private company doing it would have been.

I would have put a large wager that google would have done less of a disaster than this.

This isn't much of a bar because it couldn't have been worse. Google would have "fixed" it by uping the price tag another $100 million after throwing more resources at it at the end. Then you guys would be complaining even more about the price tag.

 

[Sand]

This has been a disaster, but no more than any private company doing it would have been.

Of course. Which is why it was moronic for the gov't to make assurances and deadlines (and come up with and sell an unworkable system in the first place) when everyone should have realized it was a much bigger task that required more careful planning.

Damn, the govt. missed the boat here. They should have hired Blizzard to do their coding. When asked about the due date they would have just said "when it is finished".

 

[tommyboy]

The Sargasso Sea of Federal IT projects —MontySo the ObamaCare IT wildfire is still out of control.

Any enterprise IT project is hard. Government IT projects are an order of magnitude more difficult.*

A lot of federal agencies (Immigration, IRS, etc.) have a huge amount of legacy data sitting in mainframe databases. And these mainframe systems are, in many cases, a decade or more behind the technology curve. It's not just a matter of "implementing an interface" to the data -- it requires an enormous amount of heavy-lift to just extract the data and make it visible to the outside world in a usable form. And that's before you start worrying about things like security, normalization, or data-transformation.

A lot of the kids doing the programming of these systems have never worked with legacy stuff written in COBOL and stored on mainframes. In fact, the agencies themselves often have no idea how to modify the mainframe stuff -- all the programmers who wrote that stuff retired years ago. It might as well be written in Sumerian cuneiform for all they know. And if you, as an external entity, want a data feed from these systems and request a SOAP or REST web-service interface to the data, you're certain to get a blank stare or a "Huzzat?" response. Or you might get some atrocious botch written by a contract programmer brought in two days before that barely works even when all the conditions are perfect, and breaks immediately when approaching any kind of boundary condition.

Worse yet: there is no institutional memory. You'll spend weeks solving some problem or other only to discover quite by accident that some other programmer went through the same hassle the year before, but no one thought to write down how he did it or what the solution was. I've been on government IT projects where no one can even find the source code to the systems we were asked to maintain. You have to deal with civil-service lifers who are "in charge" of the project, but have absolutely no computer or IT management background. You run into inter-service turf battles, procurement headaches, long delays in communicating with project principals...Christ, the list is endless.

Federal government IT contracts are the Sargasso Sea of computer programming.

*Andy sends a link that explains in detail why this sort of thing is so complicated.

[uPDATE] For those of a technical bent, Jazz has a more detailed explanation of the issues that crop up when handling data in large IT projects.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/344415.php

 

[avoiding injuries]

This has been a disaster, but no more than any private company doing it would have been.

I would have put a large wager that google would have done less of a disaster than this.

This isn't much of a bar because it couldn't have been worse. Google would have "fixed" it by uping the price tag another $100 million after throwing more resources at it at the end. Then you guys would be complaining even more about the price tag.

I don't think so. The price of this project wasn't brought up and didn't become an "issue" until it was revealed to be a complete disaster. I don't know if I ever would have heard what they spent had it turned out to be successful.

 

[tommyboy]

WASHINGTON—Responding to widespread criticism regarding its health care website, the federal government today unveiled its new, improved Obamacare program, which allows Americans to purchase health insurance after installing a software bundle contained on 35 floppy disks. “I have heard the complaints about the existing website, and I can assure you that with this revised system, finding the right health care option for you and your family is as easy as loading 35 floppy disks sequentially into your disk drive and following the onscreen prompts,” President Obama told reporters this morning, explaining that the nearly three dozen 3.5-inch diskettes contain all the data needed for individuals to enroll in the Health Insurance Marketplace, while noting that the updated Obamacare software is mouse-compatible and requires a 386 Pentium processor with at least 8 MB of system RAM to function properly. “Just fire up MS-DOS, enter ‘A:\>dir *.exe’ into the command line, and then follow the instructions to install the Obamacare batch files—it should only take four or five hours at the most. You can press F1 for help if you run into any problems. And be sure your monitor’s screen resolution is at 320 x 200 or it might not display properly.” Obama added that the federal government hopes to have a six–CD-ROM version of the program available by 2016.

 

[The Commish]

Okay, answer this question as if I am a dummy (shouldn't be hard), what is agile?

I am an accountant not a software programmer or consultant. I would love to have some idea what you guys are talking about.

It's a PM approach where you do a bunch of mini "sprints" and deploy small amounts of code/application throughout a period of time instead of doing very large releases that have many changes deployed at once. If you have a project in a typcial "waterfall" methodology and you have 15 requirements to your project, you set a period of XX weeks in the release. During that time you code all the requirements and add them to the test env....near the end of the release schedule everything is tested as once and rolled out at once. In agile, you may have a sprint where you code 3 requirements, test them, then roll them out....then the following you might have 8 items, you test them and then roll them out. By the end all 15 have been deployed and tested. Make sense?

Yes, thanks for your input. Is the advantage of agile that you have a better idea of what needs correcting quicker because you test fewer things at a time and therefore there are fewer thngs that could be failing?

I'm not a big agile fan, so the "advantages" are lost on me a little bit However, I believe it's along those lines. You don't hold up the whole project because of one or two issues etc.

The real benefit - in my opinion is that you see working software more often in the process that the end user gives you feedback on - "are you meeting the requirements" . Typical old school waterfall projects spend time on requirement gatherings and then code development that don't reveal the problems in the requirements soon enough. The garbage in of the bad requirements results in garbage out applications - but sometimes it is revealed much later(or too late) and makes it difficult to recover a schedule.

There is also truth in the working software - developers can't come up with excuses as to why it is not working as easily. You are tasked to get something built - you gotta build it. Also the people developing do more of the determination of how long it will take to develop and deliver. If problems arise - adjustments are easier to make on a daily basis of the small task - versus it getting revealed later as it affects other parts of the project.

Can you explain what the "bad requirements" are?? You mean things that are glaring cost hogs or things that can't technically be done? In my experience, that's on the analyst doing the translation from business requirements to functional requirements and it doesn't matter what philosophy you follow. If they aren't good at weeding out the garbage, you're going to hit the problems. This is why I really struggle with seeing the usefulness of the methodology as a means to make process better. It's not the methodology, it's the people. If the people are crap, methodology isn't going to help. Now, I do see the benefits of the scrums. Telling folks what you're working on, what you got accomplished and if there are impediments. I'm not sure it's necessary daily, but I do think it's of value. At the same time, it's not difficult to make that a policy in other methodologies.

 

[The Commish]

This has been a disaster, but no more than any private company doing it would have been.

I would have put a large wager that google would have done less of a disaster than this.

This isn't much of a bar because it couldn't have been worse. Google would have "fixed" it by uping the price tag another $100 million after throwing more resources at it at the end. Then you guys would be complaining even more about the price tag.

I don't think so. The price of this project wasn't brought up and didn't become an "issue" until it was revealed to be a complete disaster. I don't know if I ever would have heard what they spent had it turned out to be successful.

You're fooling yourself. Don't think for a second that the opportunity to point out that it cost 6 times the budgeted amount would slip through GOP fingers. That's the kind of crap these idiots live for. And by "idiots" I mean politicians and

 

[Zegras11]

Hello, this is Peggy, can I help you?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Okay, answer this question as if I am a dummy (shouldn't be hard), what is agile?

I am an accountant not a software programmer or consultant. I would love to have some idea what you guys are talking about.

It's a PM approach where you do a bunch of mini "sprints" and deploy small amounts of code/application throughout a period of time instead of doing very large releases that have many changes deployed at once. If you have a project in a typcial "waterfall" methodology and you have 15 requirements to your project, you set a period of XX weeks in the release. During that time you code all the requirements and add them to the test env....near the end of the release schedule everything is tested as once and rolled out at once. In agile, you may have a sprint where you code 3 requirements, test them, then roll them out....then the following you might have 8 items, you test them and then roll them out. By the end all 15 have been deployed and tested. Make sense?

Yes, thanks for your input. Is the advantage of agile that you have a better idea of what needs correcting quicker because you test fewer things at a time and therefore there are fewer thngs that could be failing?

I'm not a big agile fan, so the "advantages" are lost on me a little bit However, I believe it's along those lines. You don't hold up the whole project because of one or two issues etc.

The real benefit - in my opinion is that you see working software more often in the process that the end user gives you feedback on - "are you meeting the requirements" . Typical old school waterfall projects spend time on requirement gatherings and then code development that don't reveal the problems in the requirements soon enough. The garbage in of the bad requirements results in garbage out applications - but sometimes it is revealed much later(or too late) and makes it difficult to recover a schedule.

There is also truth in the working software - developers can't come up with excuses as to why it is not working as easily. You are tasked to get something built - you gotta build it. Also the people developing do more of the determination of how long it will take to develop and deliver. If problems arise - adjustments are easier to make on a daily basis of the small task - versus it getting revealed later as it affects other parts of the project.

Can you explain what the "bad requirements" are?? You mean things that are glaring cost hogs or things that can't technically be done? In my experience, that's on the analyst doing the translation from business requirements to functional requirements and it doesn't matter what philosophy you follow. If they aren't good at weeding out the garbage, you're going to hit the problems. This is why I really struggle with seeing the usefulness of the methodology as a means to make process better. It's not the methodology, it's the people. If the people are crap, methodology isn't going to help. Now, I do see the benefits of the scrums. Telling folks what you're working on, what you got accomplished and if there are impediments. I'm not sure it's necessary daily, but I do think it's of value. At the same time, it's not difficult to make that a policy in other methodologies.

Agree, the people are the key, not the methodology. However, a key component of any contract should have been user acceptance approval and signoff by management. The business/users are the first to complain about the estimated time for testing and testing is always the first thing to get cut when trying to hit a deployment date.

 

[Phil Elliott]

This has been a disaster, but no more than any private company doing it would have been.

I would have put a large wager that google would have done less of a disaster than this.

This isn't much of a bar because it couldn't have been worse. Google would have "fixed" it by uping the price tag another $100 million after throwing more resources at it at the end. Then you guys would be complaining even more about the price tag.

I don't think so. The price of this project wasn't brought up and didn't become an "issue" until it was revealed to be a complete disaster. I don't know if I ever would have heard what they spent had it turned out to be successful.

You're fooling yourself. Don't think for a second that the opportunity to point out that it cost 6 times the budgeted amount would slip through GOP fingers. That's the kind of crap these idiots live for. And by "idiots" I mean politicians and

I think the cost has always been a point of discussion back to when the bill was first debated and passed.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Even Nancy Pelosi isn't toeing the party line on this thing anymore. #### must be really bad in the trenches right now.

 

[timschochet]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

 

[timschochet]

The New York Times this morning put it more succinctly:

A technical issue isn't likely to have legs.

 

[Joe T]

The New York Times this morning put it more succinctly:

A technical issue isn't likely to have legs.

True. But if the Affordable Care turns out to be not-so-affordable for most then we'll have an issue that has legs.

Part of the problem with the technical issue is that most people still can't figure out what this is going to cost them individually. So the potential broader issue is on the back burner for now.

 

[The Commish]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

They will if folks get into the system and see premiums going up. It's already been proven that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a bold faced lie. IMO, you're completely focused on the politics of all this garbage and not the events having impact on these people. It's part of the problem with our society. Until we stop looking at these decision from political towers and look at them from practical POVs it's not going to change and citizens will be the collateral damage again and again. I have a few friends who own their own businesses and don't like what they are seeing as it's not close to what was promised as "affordable". This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone though.

 

[timschochet]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

They will if folks get into the system and see premiums going up. It's already been proven that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a bold faced lie. IMO, you're completely focused on the politics of all this garbage and not the events having impact on these people. It's part of the problem with our society. Until we stop looking at these decision from political towers and look at them from practical POVs it's not going to change and citizens will be the collateral damage again and again. I have a few friends who own their own businesses and don't like what they are seeing as it's not close to what was promised as "affordable". This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone though.

Actually I'm not- quite the opposite. But the problem is I don't know what the impact is going to be. The opponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find their premiums higher. The proponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find either no change or their premiums lower. These two arguments have been rather consistent for 3 years now, and we still don't know which is correct.

My own feeling from the beginning has been that Obamacare would cost society more, both in actual price and in quality of healthcare, but that these changes would occur over a long period of time, and that the initial reaction to the program from the public would be approval. That's why I was and remain opposed to Obamacare, but it also causes me to believe that the proponents' argument above is much more likely to be true than the opponents. But we'll know much more in a few months.

 

[Hang 10]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

If this bill is the turd that we all think it is...there will be plenty of time to point that out when we're all paying for it.

 

[The Commish]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

They will if folks get into the system and see premiums going up. It's already been proven that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a bold faced lie. IMO, you're completely focused on the politics of all this garbage and not the events having impact on these people. It's part of the problem with our society. Until we stop looking at these decision from political towers and look at them from practical POVs it's not going to change and citizens will be the collateral damage again and again. I have a few friends who own their own businesses and don't like what they are seeing as it's not close to what was promised as "affordable". This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone though.

Actually I'm not- quite the opposite. But the problem is I don't know what the impact is going to be. The opponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find their premiums higher. The proponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find either no change or their premiums lower. These two arguments have been rather consistent for 3 years now, and we still don't know which is correct.

My own feeling from the beginning has been that Obamacare would cost society more, both in actual price and in quality of healthcare, but that these changes would occur over a long period of time, and that the initial reaction to the program from the public would be approval. That's why I was and remain opposed to Obamacare, but it also causes me to believe that the proponents' argument above is much more likely to be true than the opponents. But we'll know much more in a few months.

Everything you post about this is from a political standpoint. You don't see that? It's always "what the GOP is going to attack" vs "what the Dems will do to redirect" etc. MOST Americans are waiting to see what happens. The well known "proponents" and "opponents" you mention are from each side and it's all what they THINK is going to happen. I've maintained from the beginning we won't see much difference when it comes to treatment practices, but the insurance is going to cost more and cover less. Costs won't be addressed and it will be the same turd in a different wrapper.

 

[TheIronSheik]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

Yes. I'm sure Democrats are high fiving over this rollout.

 

[timschochet]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

They will if folks get into the system and see premiums going up. It's already been proven that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a bold faced lie. IMO, you're completely focused on the politics of all this garbage and not the events having impact on these people. It's part of the problem with our society. Until we stop looking at these decision from political towers and look at them from practical POVs it's not going to change and citizens will be the collateral damage again and again. I have a few friends who own their own businesses and don't like what they are seeing as it's not close to what was promised as "affordable". This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone though.

Actually I'm not- quite the opposite. But the problem is I don't know what the impact is going to be. The opponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find their premiums higher. The proponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find either no change or their premiums lower. These two arguments have been rather consistent for 3 years now, and we still don't know which is correct.

My own feeling from the beginning has been that Obamacare would cost society more, both in actual price and in quality of healthcare, but that these changes would occur over a long period of time, and that the initial reaction to the program from the public would be approval. That's why I was and remain opposed to Obamacare, but it also causes me to th believe that the proponents' argument above is much more likely to be true than the opponents. But we'll know much more in a few months.

Everything you post about this is from a political standpoint. You don't see that? It's always "what the GOP is going to attack" vs "what the Dems will do to redirect" etc. MOST Americans are waiting to see what happens. The well known "proponents" and "opponents" you mention are from each side and it's all what they THINK is going to happen. I've maintained from the beginning we won't see much difference when it comes to treatment practices, but the insurance is going to cost more and cover less. Costs won't be addressed and it will be the same turd in a different wrapper.

I'm interested in the political game, of course I am, but only because it's all we have at the moment. You're behaving a little high-handed, arguing that we should mainly be concerned with how this affects people, and I agree that should be everyone's primary concern- but nobody knows how it will affect people yet. You think you do (you just called it a "turd") but you don't. No one has any idea. The political game is the only game that we can make reasonable projections about.

So until we get some idea of how people are truly affected by Obamacare (and that's several months away) I will continue to discuss the political aspects, because that's all there is to discuss.

 

[The Commish]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

They will if folks get into the system and see premiums going up. It's already been proven that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a bold faced lie. IMO, you're completely focused on the politics of all this garbage and not the events having impact on these people. It's part of the problem with our society. Until we stop looking at these decision from political towers and look at them from practical POVs it's not going to change and citizens will be the collateral damage again and again. I have a few friends who own their own businesses and don't like what they are seeing as it's not close to what was promised as "affordable". This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone though.

Actually I'm not- quite the opposite. But the problem is I don't know what the impact is going to be. The opponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find their premiums higher. The proponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find either no change or their premiums lower. These two arguments have been rather consistent for 3 years now, and we still don't know which is correct.

My own feeling from the beginning has been that Obamacare would cost society more, both in actual price and in quality of healthcare, but that these changes would occur over a long period of time, and that the initial reaction to the program from the public would be approval. That's why I was and remain opposed to Obamacare, but it also causes me to th believe that the proponents' argument above is much more likely to be true than the opponents. But we'll know much more in a few months.

Everything you post about this is from a political standpoint. You don't see that? It's always "what the GOP is going to attack" vs "what the Dems will do to redirect" etc. MOST Americans are waiting to see what happens. The well known "proponents" and "opponents" you mention are from each side and it's all what they THINK is going to happen. I've maintained from the beginning we won't see much difference when it comes to treatment practices, but the insurance is going to cost more and cover less. Costs won't be addressed and it will be the same turd in a different wrapper.

I'm interested in the political game, of course I am, but only because it's all we have at the moment. You're behaving a little high-handed, arguing that we should mainly be concerned with how this affects people, and I agree that should be everyone's primary concern- but nobody knows how it will affect people yet. You think you do (you just called it a "turd") but you don't. No one has any idea. The political game is the only game that we can make reasonable projections about.

So until we get some idea of how people are truly affected by Obamacare (and that's several months away) I will continue to discuss the political aspects, because that's all there is to discuss.

What does "high-handed" mean? People are beginning to register...so results are coming in. Why can't we talk about those? Hell, two months ago TGunz was claiming resounding "success" because it's "working" for a state with specific and unique circumstances. What's wrong with actually wanting to discuss the results that are coming in?

 

[timschochet]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

They will if folks get into the system and see premiums going up. It's already been proven that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a bold faced lie. IMO, you're completely focused on the politics of all this garbage and not the events having impact on these people. It's part of the problem with our society. Until we stop looking at these decision from political towers and look at them from practical POVs it's not going to change and citizens will be the collateral damage again and again. I have a few friends who own their own businesses and don't like what they are seeing as it's not close to what was promised as "affordable". This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone though.

Actually I'm not- quite the opposite. But the problem is I don't know what the impact is going to be. The opponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find their premiums higher. The proponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find either no change or their premiums lower. These two arguments have been rather consistent for 3 years now, and we still don't know which is correct.

My own feeling from the beginning has been that Obamacare would cost society more, both in actual price and in quality of healthcare, but that these changes would occur over a long period of time, and that the initial reaction to the program from the public would be approval. That's why I was and remain opposed to Obamacare, but it also causes me to th believe that the proponents' argument above is much more likely to be true than the opponents. But we'll know much more in a few months.

Everything you post about this is from a political standpoint. You don't see that? It's always "what the GOP is going to attack" vs "what the Dems will do to redirect" etc. MOST Americans are waiting to see what happens. The well known "proponents" and "opponents" you mention are from each side and it's all what they THINK is going to happen. I've maintained from the beginning we won't see much difference when it comes to treatment practices, but the insurance is going to cost more and cover less. Costs won't be addressed and it will be the same turd in a different wrapper.

I'm interested in the political game, of course I am, but only because it's all we have at the moment. You're behaving a little high-handed, arguing that we should mainly be concerned with how this affects people, and I agree that should be everyone's primary concern- but nobody knows how it will affect people yet. You think you do (you just called it a "turd") but you don't. No one has any idea. The political game is the only game that we can make reasonable projections about.

So until we get some idea of how people are truly affected by Obamacare (and that's several months away) I will continue to discuss the political aspects, because that's all there is to discuss.

What does "high-handed" mean? People are beginning to register...so results are coming in. Why can't we talk about those? Hell, two months ago TGunz was claiming resounding "success" because it's "working" for a state with specific and unique circumstances. What's wrong with actually wanting to discuss the results that are coming in?

By arguing that you care about how this affects people, and I only care about the political results, your concerns are morally superior to mine.

 

[Joe T]

Jon Stewart

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-21-2013/the-weakest-link---a-few-glitches

 

[The Commish]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

They will if folks get into the system and see premiums going up. It's already been proven that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a bold faced lie. IMO, you're completely focused on the politics of all this garbage and not the events having impact on these people. It's part of the problem with our society. Until we stop looking at these decision from political towers and look at them from practical POVs it's not going to change and citizens will be the collateral damage again and again. I have a few friends who own their own businesses and don't like what they are seeing as it's not close to what was promised as "affordable". This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone though.

Actually I'm not- quite the opposite. But the problem is I don't know what the impact is going to be. The opponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find their premiums higher. The proponents of the bill argue that most people are going to find either no change or their premiums lower. These two arguments have been rather consistent for 3 years now, and we still don't know which is correct.

My own feeling from the beginning has been that Obamacare would cost society more, both in actual price and in quality of healthcare, but that these changes would occur over a long period of time, and that the initial reaction to the program from the public would be approval. That's why I was and remain opposed to Obamacare, but it also causes me to th believe that the proponents' argument above is much more likely to be true than the opponents. But we'll know much more in a few months.

Everything you post about this is from a political standpoint. You don't see that? It's always "what the GOP is going to attack" vs "what the Dems will do to redirect" etc. MOST Americans are waiting to see what happens. The well known "proponents" and "opponents" you mention are from each side and it's all what they THINK is going to happen. I've maintained from the beginning we won't see much difference when it comes to treatment practices, but the insurance is going to cost more and cover less. Costs won't be addressed and it will be the same turd in a different wrapper.

I'm interested in the political game, of course I am, but only because it's all we have at the moment. You're behaving a little high-handed, arguing that we should mainly be concerned with how this affects people, and I agree that should be everyone's primary concern- but nobody knows how it will affect people yet. You think you do (you just called it a "turd") but you don't. No one has any idea. The political game is the only game that we can make reasonable projections about.

So until we get some idea of how people are truly affected by Obamacare (and that's several months away) I will continue to discuss the political aspects, because that's all there is to discuss.

What does "high-handed" mean? People are beginning to register...so results are coming in. Why can't we talk about those? Hell, two months ago TGunz was claiming resounding "success" because it's "working" for a state with specific and unique circumstances. What's wrong with actually wanting to discuss the results that are coming in?

By arguing that you care about how this affects people, and I only care about the political results, your concerns are morally superior to mine.

I don't think I said you only care about the political results....I said that's all you talk about here. I don't know what you actually care about. Most folks talk about the things that concern them the most. Has nothing to do with morality at all.

 

[The Commish]

Jon Stewart

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-21-2013/the-weakest-link---a-few-glitches

He's been killing it the last few weeks...last night's episode regarding the banks was hilarious.

 

[humpback]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

WTH are you talking about? If Obamacare appears to be a bad law to people in a few months, you think they won't want to hear it?

 

[tommyboy]

there's plenty of policy discussion going on within the conservative side, but since you rarely look for those arguments you think they don't exist. Here's a few:

Delay the Mandate? What Mandate?Washington is abuzz tonight with talk of delaying Obamacare’s individual mandate. The Obamacare launch has been such a flop that Democratic Senators who are up for re-election next year are supporting the proposal. How fast the worm has turned! Two weeks ago, delaying the mandate was a wacko bird idea promoted by Republican anarchists and traitors. Today, it is advocated by the likes of Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Pryor. Schadenfreude? Absolutely: go ahead and enjoy it.

The movement to delay the individual mandate to buy health insurance raises a more fundamental question: what mandate? Under Obamacare, individuals are required to have health insurance. If they are not part of a group plan, they are supposed to purchase individual insurance through one of the exchanges. If they fail to do so, they have to pay a tax, or a penalty, or whatever it is. This tax/penalty was a major focus of the Supreme Court’s decision that narrowly upheld the ACA. These days, many commentators are advising healthy young people to forget about buying expensive Obamacare insurance, which is generally a bad investment for them, and instead go ahead and pay the penalty.

But they don’t have to pay the penalty. The mandate is a sham, and always has been. Theoretically, someone who chooses to be uninsured owes the government money, but the government is prohibited by the ACA from trying to collect it. What kind of a debt is it that can’t be collected?

The Joint Tax Committee prepared a summary of Obamacare that includes this discussion of the mandate:

The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.
As I understand it, the only way the IRS can possibly collect the penalty is by withholding your tax refund. No problem: if you arrange your taxes so that you don’t overpay, the penalty can never be collected from you.

Which is to say that there is no penalty for failing to comply with the Obamacare “mandate.” Many commentators have pointed this out, including us. Oddly, however, some observers who should know better continue to tell young people they should pay the penalty and forgo expensive insurance. No: young people, if they want to follow their self-interest, should forgo expensive insurance and NOT pay the penalty, because it can never be collected from them.

This is one of the reasons why many analysts say that Obamacare was designed to fail, that it is a house of cards that was always meant to collapse. Without any way to force healthy young people into the system to subsidize the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions, the Obamacare system is actuarially doomed. Either it is repealed; or insurance companies go bankrupt or refuse to participate further; or socialized medicine is achieved via the back door, i.e., taxpayers subsidize pretty much everyone so that the government inevitably takes control. Barack Obama is on video explaining that this is the real purpose of Obamacare; if you search our archives, you should find it.

Be that as it may, one thing is certain: there is no penalty for failure to comply with Obamacare’s individual mandate. If there is no penalty, there is no mandate. Which lends an other-worldly aura to the current discussion of delaying the effective date of the mandate.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/10/delay-the-mandate-what-mandate.php

 

[tommyboy]

weekly standard article today

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html

While the Affordable Care Act was making its way through Congress in 2009 and 2010, President Obama famously promised the American people over and over again that if you like your health plan, you can keep it.


“Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you,” Obama said at one rally in July 2009. “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.”

But the president's promise is turning out to be false for millions of Americans who have had their health insurance policies canceled because they don't meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

According to health policy expert Bob Laszewski, roughly 16 million Americans will lose their current plans because of Obamacare:

The U.S. individual health insurance market currently totals about 19 million people. Because the Obama administration's regulations on grandfathering existing plans were so stringent about 85% of those, 16 million, are not grandfathered and must comply with Obamacare at their next renewal. The rules are very complex. For example, if you had an individual plan in March of 2010 when the law was passed and you only increased the deductible from $1,000 to $1,500 in the years since, your plan has lost its grandfather status and it will no longer be available to you when it would have renewed in 2014.
These 16 million people are now receiving letters from their carriers saying they are losing their current coverage and must re-enroll in order to avoid a break in coverage and comply with the new health law's benefit mandates––the vast majority by January 1. Most of these will be seeing some pretty big rate increases.

Kaiser Health News called up a few insurers around the country and found that hundreds of thousands of Americans have already received cancellation notices.

"[T]he cancellation notices, which began arriving in August, have shocked many consumers in light of President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their plans if they liked them," according to Kaiser Health News reporters Anna Gorman and Julie Appleby.

"Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent," Kaiser reports. "Blue Shield of California sent roughly 119,000 cancellation notices out in mid-September, about 60 percent of its individual business. About two-thirds of those policyholders will see rate increases in their new policies, said spokesman Steve Shivinsky."

 

[tommyboy]

A new report on Obamacare in Missouri confirms that the law’s problems are about much more than technical glitches. When pressed, supporters of the ACA have tended to characterize the law as a simple tradeoff: some people have to pay higher premiums, but we’re all getting higher quality health care in return (which they define as lower deductibles and more benefits). But things are not working out that way.

Partnering with Kaiser Health News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch produced a long, informative read on Obamacare’s effects on the Missouri insurance market. The piece argues that, in general, Missourians both in the exchanges and in the non-exchange market will see higher premiums and less choice:

“Deductibles are going up. Premiums are going up. (Provider) networks are getting tighter,” said Vincent Blair, a health insurance broker in Webster Groves….
Anthem[a big insurance company in the state]‘s rates appear to be higher, and its provider networks are likely to be much more restrictive in terms of consumer choice, according to a federal database of insurance rates and local health insurance brokers.
Missouri is one of the red states that aren’t working very hard to implement Obamacare: it didn’t set up its own exchange, and it isn’t expanding its Medicaid program. Other states may wind up being success stories, and the ACA’s fate in bigger states like California will ultimately be more important than its fate in Missouri. But, on the other hand, Missouri might tell us something about what’s happening in the plurality of states with federal exchanges (27). In at least some of them, we can expect that many Americans will pay more and get less with the ACA.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/22/the-aca-more-expensive-less-choice-less-quality/

 

[timschochet]

weekly standard article today

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html

While the Affordable Care Act was making its way through Congress in 2009 and 2010, President Obama famously promised the American people over and over again that if you like your health plan, you can keep it.

Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you, Obama said at one rally in July 2009. First of all, if youve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.

But the president's promise is turning out to be false for millions of Americans who have had their health insurance policies canceled because they don't meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

According to health policy expert Bob Laszewski, roughly 16 million Americans will lose their current plans because of Obamacare:

The U.S. individual health insurance market currently totals about 19 million people. Because the Obama administration's regulations on grandfathering existing plans were so stringent about 85% of those, 16 million, are not grandfathered and must comply with Obamacare at their next renewal. The rules are very complex. For example, if you had an individual plan in March of 2010 when the law was passed and you only increased the deductible from $1,000 to $1,500 in the years since, your plan has lost its grandfather status and it will no longer be available to you when it would have renewed in 2014.

These 16 million people are now receiving letters from their carriers saying they are losing their current coverage and must re-enroll in order to avoid a break in coverage and comply with the new health law's benefit mandatesthe vast majority by January 1. Most of these will be seeing some pretty big rate increases.

Kaiser Health News called up a few insurers around the country and found that hundreds of thousands of Americans have already received cancellation notices.

"[T]he cancellation notices, which began arriving in August, have shocked many consumers in light of President Barack Obamas promise that people could keep their plans if they liked them," according to Kaiser Health News reporters Anna Gorman and Julie Appleby.

"Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent," Kaiser reports. "Blue Shield of California sent roughly 119,000 cancellation notices out in mid-September, about 60 percent of its individual business. About two-thirds of those policyholders will see rate increases in their new policies, said spokesman Steve Shivinsky."

Of all the immediate concerns about Obamacare, this is the one that threatens it the most. The whole key to an ultimately successful implementation of the ACA is that most people won't be affected. If the 16 million number is even close to the truth, then the entire program is in real trouble.

 

[Statorama]

The New York Times this morning put it more succinctly:

A technical issue isn't likely to have legs.

True. But if the Affordable Care turns out to be not-so-affordable for most then we'll have an issue that has legs.

Part of the problem with the technical issue is that most people still can't figure out what this is going to cost them individually. So the potential broader issue is on the back burner for now.

Anything that puts a spotlight on this turd is helpful towards its ultimate destruction

 

[Slapdash]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

Right, but you're missing that delaying and complicating the implementation has been the goal all along.

 

[Statorama]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

Right, but you're missing that delaying and complicating the implementation has been the goal all along.

Single payor has and always will be the long term goal of the lunatic left

 

[lod01]

Bruce Willis on Obamacare

 

[Slapdash]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

Right, but you're missing that delaying and complicating the implementation has been the goal all along.

Single payor has and always will be the long term goal of the lunatic left

Good thing you prevented the national exchanges they were proposing that would have made this a lot simpler.

 

[humpback]

All the news discussion about Obamacare is solely focused at this point on the websites being screwed up- there is no discussion as to whether or not the law itself is bad anymore. This isn't good for Republicans. They're grabbing at these headlines because it's easy meat right now, and ignoring the inevitable fact that most of these problems are very likely to be resolved within a few months time. At that point, the Republicans will then revert to the previous argument that Obamacare is a bad law, but the public won't want to hear it.

Right, but you're missing that delaying and complicating the implementation has been the goal all along.

See Tim? No matter what ends up happening, both sides are going to spin it to blame the other. Just like, well, pretty much everything.

 

[ffldrew]

A new report on Obamacare in Missouri confirms that the law’s problems are about much more than technical glitches. When pressed, supporters of the ACA have tended to characterize the law as a simple tradeoff: some people have to pay higher premiums, but we’re all getting higher quality health care in return (which they define as lower deductibles and more benefits). But things are not working out that way.

Partnering with Kaiser Health News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch produced a long, informative read on Obamacare’s effects on the Missouri insurance market. The piece argues that, in general, Missourians both in the exchanges and in the non-exchange market will see higher premiums and less choice:

“Deductibles are going up. Premiums are going up. (Provider) networks are getting tighter,” said Vincent Blair, a health insurance broker in Webster Groves….
Anthem[a big insurance company in the state]‘s rates appear to be higher, and its provider networks are likely to be much more restrictive in terms of consumer choice, according to a federal database of insurance rates and local health insurance brokers.
Missouri is one of the red states that aren’t working very hard to implement Obamacare: it didn’t set up its own exchange, and it isn’t expanding its Medicaid program. Other states may wind up being success stories, and the ACA’s fate in bigger states like California will ultimately be more important than its fate in Missouri. But, on the other hand, Missouri might tell us something about what’s happening in the plurality of states with federal exchanges (27). In at least some of them, we can expect that many Americans will pay more and get less with the ACA.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/22/the-aca-more-expensive-less-choice-less-quality/

Interesting that the states that are anti Obamacare are facing issues and higher premiums - and a complaining about that rather than wondering why the pricing from the exchanges set up in those states are higher than in other states. One of the benefits I see is that the pricing is now out there for all to see and if I'm in Missouri why do I pay more than in California or Colorado? This will put some pressure on these exchanges to explain their pricing and get it fixed - rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water here at the start.

 

[ericttspikes]

A new report on Obamacare in Missouri confirms that the law’s problems are about much more than technical glitches. When pressed, supporters of the ACA have tended to characterize the law as a simple tradeoff: some people have to pay higher premiums, but we’re all getting higher quality health care in return (which they define as lower deductibles and more benefits). But things are not working out that way.

Partnering with Kaiser Health News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch produced a long, informative read on Obamacare’s effects on the Missouri insurance market. The piece argues that, in general, Missourians both in the exchanges and in the non-exchange market will see higher premiums and less choice:

Missouri is one of the red states that aren’t working very hard to implement Obamacare: it didn’t set up its own exchange, and it isn’t expanding its Medicaid program. Other states may wind up being success stories, and the ACA’s fate in bigger states like California will ultimately be more important than its fate in Missouri. But, on the other hand, Missouri might tell us something about what’s happening in the plurality of states with federal exchanges (27). In at least some of them, we can expect that many Americans will pay more and get less with the ACA.

“Deductibles are going up. Premiums are going up. (Provider) networks are getting tighter,” said Vincent Blair, a health insurance broker in Webster Groves….

Anthem[a big insurance company in the state]‘s rates appear to be higher, and its provider networks are likely to be much more restrictive in terms of consumer choice, according to a federal database of insurance rates and local health insurance brokers.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/22/the-aca-more-expensive-less-choice-less-quality/

Interesting that the states that are anti Obamacare are facing issues and higher premiums - and a complaining about that rather than wondering why the pricing from the exchanges set up in those states are higher than in other states. One of the benefits I see is that the pricing is now out there for all to see and if I'm in Missouri why do I pay more than in California or Colorado? This will put some pressure on these exchanges to explain their pricing and get it fixed - rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water here at the start.

Right, the 27 states that refused to set up state exchanges and dumped it back into the laps of the Feds are seeing the most problems. All except four of those states are Republican controlled. They never wanted to be a success, and it was a calculated move to put more pressure on the HHS. Their choice was to pass the buck and rely on the Fed to implement it for them (ironically) instead or responsibly governing on behalf of their citizens. The initial success will be measured in those states who are part of the solution and actually are trying to make ACA work. The political stonewallers can pound sand. If their citizens are impacted negatively, they have their state government to thank. They can either continue to be outraged and upset, or work to fix it. Pretty simple.

 

[matttyl]

Looks like a delay in the individual mandate may be in the works...

new: senior dem source tells me to expect every sen dem running in 2014 to back @JeanneShaheen proposal to delay #ACA enrollment deadline

https://twitter.com/DanaBashCNN/status/393110100153352192

Honestly, this is the only move. There is little to no chance all this gets fixed in time to prevent people who are actually trying to obtain coverage from being hit with a fine.

 

[Joe T]

A new report on Obamacare in Missouri confirms that the law’s problems are about much more than technical glitches. When pressed, supporters of the ACA have tended to characterize the law as a simple tradeoff: some people have to pay higher premiums, but we’re all getting higher quality health care in return (which they define as lower deductibles and more benefits). But things are not working out that way.

Partnering with Kaiser Health News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch produced a long, informative read on Obamacare’s effects on the Missouri insurance market. The piece argues that, in general, Missourians both in the exchanges and in the non-exchange market will see higher premiums and less choice:

Missouri is one of the red states that aren’t working very hard to implement Obamacare: it didn’t set up its own exchange, and it isn’t expanding its Medicaid program. Other states may wind up being success stories, and the ACA’s fate in bigger states like California will ultimately be more important than its fate in Missouri. But, on the other hand, Missouri might tell us something about what’s happening in the plurality of states with federal exchanges (27). In at least some of them, we can expect that many Americans will pay more and get less with the ACA.

“Deductibles are going up. Premiums are going up. (Provider) networks are getting tighter,” said Vincent Blair, a health insurance broker in Webster Groves….

Anthem[a big insurance company in the state]‘s rates appear to be higher, and its provider networks are likely to be much more restrictive in terms of consumer choice, according to a federal database of insurance rates and local health insurance brokers.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/22/the-aca-more-expensive-less-choice-less-quality/

Interesting that the states that are anti Obamacare are facing issues and higher premiums - and a complaining about that rather than wondering why the pricing from the exchanges set up in those states are higher than in other states. One of the benefits I see is that the pricing is now out there for all to see and if I'm in Missouri why do I pay more than in California or Colorado? This will put some pressure on these exchanges to explain their pricing and get it fixed - rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water here at the start.

Right, the 27 states that refused to set up state exchanges and dumped it back into the laps of the Feds are seeing the most problems. All except four of those states are Republican controlled. They never wanted to be a success, and it was a calculated move to put more pressure on the HHS. Their choice was to pass the buck and rely on the Fed to implement it for them (ironically) instead or responsibly governing on behalf of their citizens. The initial success will be measured in those states who are part of the solution and actually are trying to make ACA work. The political stonewallers can pound sand. If their citizens are impacted negatively, they have their state government to thank. They can either continue to be outraged and upset, or work to fix it. Pretty simple.

So the Fed passed the buck to the states by creating the ACA. Then some states said no thanks and passed the buck back to the Fed. But you find it appropriate to blame the states even though this problem was created by the federal government originally. Got it.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Time Article

Nearly 20 million Americans have now experienced the broken Obamacare website first hand. But Ben Simo, a past president of the Association for Software Testing, found something more than a cumbersome login or a blank screen—clear evidence of subpar coding on the site.

In mid-October, he went to Healthcare.gov to help a family member get insurance, only to find his progress blocked. When he investigated the cause, he discovered that one part of the website had created so much “cookie” tracking data that it appeared to exceed the site’s capacity to accept his login information. That’s the mark of a fractured development team.

Even more alarming were the security flaws. An error message from the site relayed personal information over the internet without encryption, while the email verification system could be bypassed without access to the email account. Both security vulnerabilities could be exploited to hijack an account. “Because this is a huge system that people are mandated by law to use, the standard should be higher,” says Simo. “People are going to see it as a high value target.”

At the time, President Obama was still arguing that the main culprit for the breakdowns was the popularity of the site. “The website got overwhelmed by the volume,” he said on Oct. 4. The reality, of course, was far more dire.

The basic architecture of the site, built by federal contractors overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, was flawed in design, poorly tested and ultimately not functional. “You need there to be good people on the inside to make good contracting decisions and good people on the outside to do the work,” explained Clay Johnson, a Democratic technology consultant who recently worked as a White House fellow. “Right now, it’s the blind leading the blind.”

Even on the back end of the site, data was garbled and, in some cases, unusable. The nightly reports that insurance companies receive from the federal government on new enrollees in the health plans have been riddled with errors, including syntax mistakes, and transposed or duplicate data, according to industry veterans. In other cases, insurers received multiple enrollments and cancelations from the same person, but since the documents lacked timestamps, it has been impossible to know which form is the most recent. Companies have resorted to contacting enrollees directly to get answers, a solution possible only because so few have been able to sign up. ”We are seeing and hearing that enrollment files going to carriers are incomplete, there are errors,” said Dan Schuyler, a director of exchange technology at Leavitt Partners, a firm that consulted with several states in setting up their websites. “In three weeks or so when they start receiving these in mass volume, tens of thousands per day, it doesn’t matter if there’s a 1 percent error rate. Insurers don’t have resources to go through them and clean them up.”

After three weeks of breakdowns, Obama decided that he could no longer stand by his own spin. “Nobody is madder than me about the fact that the website isn’t working,” he said Oct. 21 in a Rose Garden speech that instructed others to stop “sugarcoating” the problems. In fact, the warning signs have been clear for months inside government, even if the White House failed to sniff them out. Federal auditors raised alarms in June, warning of missed deadlines and unfinished work. Administration officials have since put out the call for new contractors, and Silicon Valley talent, to fix the work. Jeffrey Zients, a top White House aide and former management consultant, has been tasked with leading the effort. But the pivot has not come with any new transparency about the problems. Obama’s aides refuse to confirm any particular bugs, or describe just what is wrong, as part of an effort at damage control aimed at keeping the public enthusiastic about the insurance marketplace. More clarity could come Thursday when information technology contractors plan to testify before Congress on their work.

Senior White House aides, including Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, met with insurance executives on Wednesday to chart a plan for solving the problems. “We have worked with the insures and the ‘alpha teams’ we jointly established made up of insurers’ technology experts and CMS technology experts, to iron out the kinks,” said Press Secretary Jay Carney in an emailed statement after the meeting.

Experts say the White House only has only weeks to fix the problems before they start to directly effect the success of health reform. Government officials hope to enroll 7 million people in Obamacare by the end of 2014. If they get substantially less, costs could rise for others in the system. Brett Graham, a managing director of Leavitt Partners, who has also consulted on the exchanges, says “insurers really need that process to be reliable by about Nov. 1.”

For his part, Simo tried to report the security vulnerabilities he found by contacting an online operator at the Department of Health and Human Services. But he has little hope that his message will get to the right people. The operator seemed confused about what to do with the information. After a half hour of delay, Simo was told his complaints would be forwarded the Federal Trade Commission, an agency that typically investigates consumer complaints, who would contact law enforcement as necessary.

It sounds like this is just the tip of the iceberg. If they can manage to get the first issue solved, it just means that it will all pile up again at the next roadblock. Not looking good.

 

[matttyl]

Of all the immediate concerns about Obamacare, this is the one that threatens it the most. The whole key to an ultimately successful implementation of the ACA is that most people won't be affected. If the 16 million number is even close to the truth, then the entire program is in real trouble.

While the 16M number, more or less, is true - the bolded part above isn't. The whole key to an ultimately successful implementation of the ACA is that most people get placed on the exchanges who previously had underwritten coverage (meaning they are insurable). If the only people entering these ACA/exchange pools are the people who previously didn't have insurance due to being uninsurable, those "insurance pools" would be "death spirals". Those people need to be offset, and offset at a rate of like 10 or even 20 to 1 to have an "ultimately successful implementation of the ACA."

 

[The Commish]

A new report on Obamacare in Missouri confirms that the law’s problems are about much more than technical glitches. When pressed, supporters of the ACA have tended to characterize the law as a simple tradeoff: some people have to pay higher premiums, but we’re all getting higher quality health care in return (which they define as lower deductibles and more benefits). But things are not working out that way.

Partnering with Kaiser Health News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch produced a long, informative read on Obamacare’s effects on the Missouri insurance market. The piece argues that, in general, Missourians both in the exchanges and in the non-exchange market will see higher premiums and less choice:

Missouri is one of the red states that aren’t working very hard to implement Obamacare: it didn’t set up its own exchange, and it isn’t expanding its Medicaid program. Other states may wind up being success stories, and the ACA’s fate in bigger states like California will ultimately be more important than its fate in Missouri. But, on the other hand, Missouri might tell us something about what’s happening in the plurality of states with federal exchanges (27). In at least some of them, we can expect that many Americans will pay more and get less with the ACA.

“Deductibles are going up. Premiums are going up. (Provider) networks are getting tighter,” said Vincent Blair, a health insurance broker in Webster Groves….

Anthem[a big insurance company in the state]‘s rates appear to be higher, and its provider networks are likely to be much more restrictive in terms of consumer choice, according to a federal database of insurance rates and local health insurance brokers.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/22/the-aca-more-expensive-less-choice-less-quality/

Interesting that the states that are anti Obamacare are facing issues and higher premiums - and a complaining about that rather than wondering why the pricing from the exchanges set up in those states are higher than in other states. One of the benefits I see is that the pricing is now out there for all to see and if I'm in Missouri why do I pay more than in California or Colorado? This will put some pressure on these exchanges to explain their pricing and get it fixed - rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water here at the start.

Right, the 27 states that refused to set up state exchanges and dumped it back into the laps of the Feds are seeing the most problems. All except four of those states are Republican controlled. They never wanted to be a success, and it was a calculated move to put more pressure on the HHS. Their choice was to pass the buck and rely on the Fed to implement it for them (ironically) instead or responsibly governing on behalf of their citizens. The initial success will be measured in those states who are part of the solution and actually are trying to make ACA work. The political stonewallers can pound sand. If their citizens are impacted negatively, they have their state government to thank. They can either continue to be outraged and upset, or work to fix it. Pretty simple.

So the Fed passed the buck to the states by creating the ACA. Then some states said no thanks and passed the buck back to the Fed. But you find it appropriate to blame the states even though this problem was created by the federal government originally. Got it.

Are you guys talking about the "gap" between the medicaid qualifiers and where ACA kicks in? There's a gap there and the federal government offered to pay for the people in that gap for a period of three years while they adjusted ACA. I thought it was 26 states rejected the money on the premise that they thought the plan sucked, so instead of helping the folks in that gap, they've basically turned their backs on them. I suppose they could play the "but what if we don't reach a deal and have to start paying for them after three years" card, but I'm not sure they gave it that much thought. It's also interesting that ALL those states are already states who take more from the government revenue wise than they give....they just drew the line at ACA I guess??

If this isn't what you guys are talking about, carry on....I'm thinking of a different topic. I'll get Tim to start a new thread on it