Dec. 18, 2013 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
This is ridiculous. From all that I have read, and that is a great deal of information, the real problem with these websites is the developers and implementers of the sites, not Obama.
You, obviously, have good health insurance. What about those who don't have it, and/or have existing conditions? There is not time for many of these people to go back to the drawing board. That's made from your point of view, which is very different from middle class and poorer people in Lawrence, This is typical of many people at the university level - they have no insight into other people's lives in Lawrence, and this has been going on for many years.
The Obama administration should go directly to these developers. They are able to create other sites which serve millions of people, such as Google, or Amazon.
If they can't do these sites correctly, they should be sued immediately and other developers found!
There's a lot of people out there, in the computer industry, who need work! And there are many who can do this work correctly and thoughtfully.
So are you saying that when faulty Intel was provided to the President regarding WMD's that it was not his fault he sold the country on going into Iraq?
It really was just those pesky intelligence officers who should have been fired immediately and then we should have found some who knew how to provide accurate information. I seem to remember a saying that seems appropriate. "the Buck Stops Here"
GREG, There was no faulty intel. I CLEARLY remember UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix saying over and over and over again that there was ZERO evidence of WMD's in Iraq.
There was however manufactured intel to support Bush's desire to enter Iraq.
Also YOU may have been sold on going to war with Iraq but countless, critical thinking Americans were not!
No actually Kevin's comments were correct and there is nothing you can do about that except resort to hyperbole and nothing more.
I guess you do as you do it quite well. I am honored to be critiqued by such a profound thinker as you.
Not True Kevin, "In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein." "Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information"
North Korea, and Iran likely have WMD but we are not invading them or even considering it. So the potential that Iraq had WMD was no reason to invade, particularly without ANY clear cut evidence.
Your previous post is incorrect and worthless.
I am not aware that any of those people made the case we should invade Iraq.
There's little need for accusation, most of what you post is incorrect and devoid of fact.
You miss my point Frank the "Buck stops here" applies to President Bush as it does President Obama. The responsibility for inferior information (doctored or not) lies squarely on the presidents lap. Just the same as President Obama is responsible for the debacle regarding the technology aspects of the ACA.
If my company fails, then it is not my employees fault it is mine. If my company succeeds then it is due to the hard work of my employees not me. I was simply pointing out to Lawrence the responsibility lies where the "Buck Stops" in a system failure.
I am not sure how anyone can disagree with that. I also did not state my opinion on whether I am in favor of action in Iraq or whether I am for or against the ACA. I did state an opinion regarding the responsibility of leadership.
I don't necessarily agree with Greg, but his post is civil in both its content and its presentation.
I appreciate the change in tone on the forums, and though I may disagree with Greg on this topic, I fully appreciate his willingness to share his opinion in as a part of our community discourse.
Problems with major software developments are legendary. Why anyone expects more from the ACA implementation given our experience is - well - stupid.
Yes Obama is at fault. Once the expected problems surfaced he should have put a moratorium on electronic registration to allow time for fixes and to avoid frustration with the system.. Just slip the mandatory coverage date accordingly. The fear of Republicans is clouding judgement.
Why should he have put a moratorium on registration instead of just fixing the system? I agree that it's borked, but the glitches are mainly with the interface trying to set things up. That's what needs to be fixed. Once someone registers and picks an insurance plan, the private insurer takes over.
This isn't a car. This is a comparison shopping tool. I can tell you've never launched a website.
Good question. Because
1. It takes time to fix things as complicated as the ACA System and has been demonstrated as such many times.
2. Pushing the developers to "fix" it under great pressure has frequently proven to be counter-productive
3. Frustrating the citizenry in fighting a "broken" system is not good public policy.
4. There is no specific reason why this month as opposed to Christmas makes any real difference.
As I said, too many people cannot get out from among the trees to see the forest. We should make technical and not political decisions on something like this.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could make technical and not political decisions? Take a gander at Kevin's statements on the matter, and I think you'll see that that's not really possible. Fix the website. Rolling patches are the way the web works.
Really?? This is not an existing web where you can patch a piece without major impact to anyone. This is a major new software system resident on the web. Leaving it up impacts those trying to gain access. Good public policy says you take it down and fix it and roll it out again when it is truly ready.
I do not care about Kevin. I am accusing you of being overly political by rationalizing that the system can not be taken down and repaired and that saying so must be political. You are worse than Kevin.
IMHO I was attempting to defend our former Governor and the Obama administration against charges that the system is disposable. IMHO it is just growing pains. but leaving it up because you are afraid of the Republicans is bad public policy and bad politics.
One can still register by snail mail ()and I believe in some markets by phone). The program does not start until January and having to make a months deposit suggests that most people who might need the system will likely wait until December to actually "join".
Look. Years of development time with no real user data didn't do them a bit of good in getting the system to work well. Patching it is how it has to go.
It's a comparison shopping tool that draws upon a bunch of other databases from what I understand. Once someone has insurance, they're getting that insurance through an existing private market insurer, not through healthcare.gov, so it's not putting people in danger to fix a live system to actually interface with the databases the way it's supposed to interface with them.
See, here's the thing. If I were "overly political," I'd tell you there was nothing wrong with the website. I can give you a technical rundown of the various UX and database issues that I see from my perspective, although it's just a guess, since I didn't work on the site (thank goodness.) It's a mess.
Now if it was a security flaw? Your'e right. Shut 'er down. In this case, I think they should push phone enrollment and patch, patch, patch.
Well we disagree. Do you have any experience in bringing in a large software system. I do as I have been a program manager on more than one. Patching the way you suggest is only called for if you must have the system operating. There is no such imperative here. Shut it down and set a new roll out date for people to again engage it.
Yes. Probably a lot more recently than you have. And yes, there is an imperative to have the system running here. Remember how I told you we couldn't make technical but not political decisions? This is what I'm talking about. The GOP just held the economy hostage over the ACA. There's no way they can shutter the website at this point.
Mike, you live in quite the bubble don't you. You likely already have government subsidized healthcare don't you so its pretty easy for you to complain about the rollout for those less fortunate?
1) With a house that is bent on repealing the ACA it's kind of difficult to secure any additional funding to launch the program in an ideal fashion. Furthermore State officials like the Brownback administration have done nothing to help the rollout as they decline funds to setup state based exchanges putting additional strain on the federal systems.
2) "How many will want to go through the misery of the online mess?" Well apparently Millions have visited the site and at least a million have completed the signup in the first 2 weeks. How about you voluntarily drop your families healthcare and let me know if its worth dealing with a bit of an inconvenience to provide your loved ones health care.
3) Since when is it appropriate to scrap a health care program or any program for that matter just because the rollout is less than ideal? Maybe the federal government should have consulted you in how to best launch a program designed to improve the quality of life for millions since you appear to know it all. The only thing I see that needs to go back to the drawing board is your misguided opinion piece.
What I find funny is that the same people that blamed Bush for every negative thing that happened during his 8 years in office and several years after, refuse to blame Obama for anything. Nothing is Obama's fault, it is somehow always a Repulicans fault. My how open minded they are.
There is a significant difference in seeing fault within the context of going to war and providing health insurance.
Ok Frank, lets not use Iraq as an example lets use the unfunded mandate No Child Left Behind. The responsibility for the failures of this program is the responsibility of GWB. Just the same as the responsibility for Technology failures are BHO's.
Oh, but the quality of the conversation has improved so much now that he's here with his real name, don't you think?
Just following your lead Mr Roberts.
I almost support the first half of this LOE's point - however, he misses several major facts. Probably most importantly that Brownback turned away around $35,000,000 designated for creating and operating the system to help it run efficiently. If you're problem is how ridiculous it is operate, the problem starts there.
The failures of the national exchange are something we could have avoided if Brownback hadn't changed his mind and left that money on the table.
I hear you're good at researching on the Internet. Why don't you tell us if the people who designed the website ever bounced any checks?
Help me with how you reasoned that Brownback had anything to do with the overall system we are trying to create??
Kansas could have implemented a state exchange. He had tons of money to do it. He rejected it in a Koch-induced temper tantrum. If Brownback had implemented a state exchange, that's the website we'd be using, not the federal one.
On top of that, if he'd expanded medicare, the number of uninsured Kansans would have drastically dropped without the need for a website at all.
Ok. I understand your rationale. If the guy you hate had chosen to build the site it would certainly be running better???? Being the evil being you detest would he have not sabotaged it???
Yes, we could have expanded Medicare for the additional populations included in the ACA legislation. I support that. I am also of the opinion that that is as far as we should go with subsidies. Pandering to people who make the average national income is a losing game that will eventually bankrupt us!!!
The guy I hate wouldn't have built the site. Sandy Praeger would have been in charge, and she's got a level head on her shoulders.
Oh. How do you come to that conclusion?? The governor has wide latitude in where federal money coming to the state goes. It probably would have been a contract. While I have considerable respect for Ms Praeger and wish that she would run for a higher office I seriously doubt she is the right answer to build a complex software system Again you seem to be driven by politics and not by technical considerations.
Because she's the insurance commissioner. Running the exchange is her job. We'll never know how it would have all gone down with her running the ship, but If Brownback wanted to sabotage the system, he'd just send back all the federal money the state could have used to set up a state program and refuse any medicaid expansion. Oh wait...
Running it not building it!!!
Would it not be a better country if we could all think independently and stop toting party line propaganda? It shocking to see how blind both sides have become to their own hypocrisy. Was the Iraq war a mistake? Yes, a mistake with a 95% approval rating pre attack. Does Obama lack certain skills to be a good prez? Yes. Has Congress made Obama's job impossible? Yes. Is the Tea Part crazy? Yes! Are the Democrats incapable of a balanced budget? Yes, but so are Repubs. Do Repubs blow money on unnecessary military contracts? Yes.
Our govt is a mess. Stopping pac money and term limits on everyon voted in to any position of power would be steps in the right direction. The problem is the law makers are the offenders. I don't have the answers but I do know that keeping the sheep bickering about a president from 5 yrs ago and about the current prez destroying our country is exactly what every police an wants and they are all winning. Side note: guess where the richest per capita area is in the US?
(New phone, can't find auto spell check and I don't want to proof so I know there are spelling and grammatical issues....I just don't care enough to fix them)
Got an idea. Just forget Obamacare and that monster reckless mess that preceded Obamacare for approximately 80 years and move into a program that will reduce the cost of big business,small business,public education,higher education, local government,state government and dare I say the federal government.
Single-Payer (HR 676 and S 703) Expanded Medicare for All Vs. Proposed Healthcare “Private insurance with Public Option”
--- http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf ( very interesting findings)
Physicians for a National Health Program
IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL would cover every person for all necessary medical care 24/7 to include:
Wellness /prescription drugs / hospital / surgical / outpatient services / primary and
preventive care / emergency services / dental / mental health / home health / physical therapy / rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) / vision care / hearing services including hearing aids / chiropractic / medical equipment / palliative care / long term care
No deductibles / No Co-pays
Now we're talking practical and fiscally responsible insurance coverage. NO re-inventing of the wheel necessary.
For all of the whining about Obamacare look what can be found in the news.
Republicans Quietly Requesting Obamacare Dollars
Paul Ryan Also QUIETLY Requested Obamacare Dollars
Why did they shut down government and cost the taxpayers about $20 billion dollars?
The deficit to which Obama care adds another $250B per year when fully implemented.
No, it doesn't. Please use better sources. Paul Ryan is lying to you.
From the CBO:
"Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade."
"...and in the subsequent decade" means the ten years after that. That's twenty years of estimates.
I lost a post. The data you used is accurate but badly corrupted. The CBO is not a good source here because they are required by law to price the assumptions associated with the law. The zero impact results from assuming a savings in Medicare of about $700B which the trustees have declared unobtainable without cutting services. It was further corrupted by using six years of expenses and ten years of new taxes and payments.
The newest CBO estimate suggest the next ten years (2020 to 2030 ) are a 1.7 trillion dollar cost ($170M per year).
My estimate used nobody's data. I obtained the annual cost per patient for Medicaid (the best comparative I believe available) from CMS data divided by 2 (half of Medicaid is nursing home care) and multiplied by the number of people the democrats claim will be served by the new system. That is where my $250 billion comes from.
So I will spot you that Obama Care when fully implemented will cost between $170 and 250 billion per year.
I would also note that in the long haul claiming all the additional revenue can only be used to off set Obama Care costs is a loaded political matter. The additional revenue could just as well be allocated to the shortfalls in Medicare and Medicaid. The new money goes into the general fund from which the majority of all federal operating expenses are paid
Sometimes I have no idea why a post is pulled, but in that case it was obvious. You engaged in a personal attack. I didn't report you, but I did think it was pretty immature.
No offense, but just looking at the conclusions you've drawn without evidence in other threads, I'm gonna go with the CBO as the better voice of authority here. You're making faulty assumptions about medicaid and multiplying by bad numbers. Granted the CBO is making an estimate, but they're using more solid methodology.
OK $170 Billion per year!. That is a CBO number. You can go with anyone you want but you do have the responsibility to understand the numbers and where they come from.
All these numbers are estimates. Mine is as defensible as anyone else. Buy in for new programs whether in Defense or Social Programs is a given in our country. Do look up the original estimates for Medicare or Medicaid.
Apparently you do not really understand the OMB numbers. You can not repeat the trick of counting ten years of income and six years of expenses.
Yes you can claim that all the offsets like Medicare and new taxes continue to reduce the costs of Obama Care but it still costs $170 Billion per year or more. Offsets are part of making a bill look revenue neutral but the program still costs what it costs.
Unfortunately the additional revenue is not locked away for Obama Care. IT just goes onto the general pot against which the true costs of Obama care is levied.
Actually, that GAO projection was what happens if all the cost savings stuff is taken out. Shocking, that when you repeal the parts of the law that save money, you no longer save money. Who knew? Now when the law is implemented as written and upheld by the Supreme Court, it turns out that the GAO predicts it will save money and reduce the deficit in the long run.
Actually, it is. I know you've only heard the talking point, but you're missing half the story. This is what happens when you rely on the echo chamber for your "facts."
The GAO clearly specifies that the projection removes all the cost saving measures:
"The Fall 2010 Alternative simulation assumed cost containment mechanisms specified in PPACA were phased out over time while the additional costs associated with expanding federal health care coverage remained. Under these assumptions, the long-term outlook worsened slightly compared to the pre-PPACA January 2010 simulation. [Government Accountability Office, January 2013]"
Without those cuts?
"[T]here was notable improvement in the longer-term outlook after the enactment of [the health care law] under GAO's Fall 2010 Baseline Extended simulation, which assumes both the expansion of health care coverage and the full implementation and effectiveness of the cost-containment provisions over the entire 75-year simulation period."
Or, as The Hill puts it:
"Assuming the law is enforced as-is, the U.S. deficit will decline 1.5 percent as a share of the economy over the next 75 years, according to the GAO. Auditors attributed 1.2 percent of this improvement to the Affordable Care Act.
Under a different set of assumptions, the law has the opposite effect over time, the GAO said -- the deficit will increase by 0.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) if the law's cost-containment measures are phased out."
GAO stands for Government Accountability Office. They're who both you and I cited. I just pointed out that the figure came from taking away or repealing all the cost savings measures. You seemed like maybe you were cutting and pasting without comprehension, so I thought I might clarify that before you attempted to move the goalposts with some op ed.
Well done Barb.
It appears all he has left is insults and conspiracy theories about my name. It's both sad and funny.
He also slandered you and accused you of sending racist facebook messages. I'm surprised the mods let that one stand, frankly, as eager as they've been to delete far more innocuous comments.
But then, leaving the comments standing may be the best revenge. I cannot see how it could possibly be good for business.
This thread baffles me. I started out to defend the Obama administration pointing out that the software to implement this program is complex. I then made the mistake of suggesting that Mr. Obama was adding to the problem by not pulling the system to fix it
I spent the next twenty posts arguing about whether the system should be taken down and fixed or allowed to malfunction in place. In retrospect that is irrelevant to my original intent.
We did digress to the costs of Obama care and I learned something. Apparently at least some posters believe that the cost of the program is zero because other things were cut or taxes were raised. I never thought of it that way before.
Regardless the program does cost the government money even if there are offsets and IMHO that cost is somewhere between $170 and $250 billion a year when fully implemented. Those of you who want to believe it is zero be my guest as long as I can consider the cost of a new tank zero because taxes were levied at some point to pay for it.
Is there too much politics on here? Well IMHO we managed to politicize what started as a neutral statement about software complexity and the predictable consequences of building complex systems.
Hey, I agreed that the website needed to be fixed. My professional opinion is that it can and should be fixed in place rather than closed. It isn't a recommendation that happens in a political vacuum. They can't afford a do-over politically. This isn't dissimilar to other launches I've worked on where the commercial system can't be rolled back once it goes live, even if it turns out there are some serious problems. Patch, patch, patch.
But to be fair, I also think the GOP should have quietly funded the government and raised the debt ceiling and spent their energy making fun of the inevitable software glitches. Do they really have that much faith in Obama? That hardly seems possible. I guess they've never launched a website, either.
Meanwhile, we, as a country, spend more per capita taxpayer money on healthcare than countries with fully socialized medicine. It would frankly be challenging to develop a system that ended up costing us a greater share of GDP for health care. Currently the projections are that our overall deficit will decrease as a result of the measure. The sky is not falling.
If the point was that you're still missing the point? Indeed. QED. You're baffled that an opinion piece about politics has discussions about politics? Well, ok then.
And your missing my point as you turn all of it into politics. The failure of this system is not political. It is technical. Noting that failure is not political it is a fact!
From the hearings today it sounds like the technical people recommended against releasing the system. Would you care to clarify as to why it was released?
I didn't turn all of it into politics. I'm just acknowledging that it is already all about politics. It's no longer just a technical problem. It never was. Even a commercial launch of a website isn't just a technical problem. There are investors and press and all sorts of other pieces to that puzzle, too.
If I were in charge of the product, I wouldn't have released it. It's easy for me to say, because it wasn't my call. Or else I'd have gone with a smaller scale launch - the system is online for everyone with last names from A-D.
However, I can see why they felt pressured to launch it anyway. Yes. It's all political. The government had just been shut down in a tantrum over not allowing them to launch that program - and the website. They'd already delayed one piece of the system (the employer mandate) and had people crowing about how obvious it was that the whole thing wouldn't work now. The Republicans had been actively trying to sabotage that launch for three years. If they delayed even for a few weeks, it would have thrown gasoline onto the shutdown debate.
As it stands, they are delaying implementation of the individual mandate by six weeks. Notice how they didn't make this announcement during the funding showdown.
You have me laughing. The government shutdown was about release of the ACA system??? Not in my world or the world of reality. The issue started our about the funding for the ACA in its entirety. Nobody but a handful of tea party faithful believed that would happen. It then morphed into an argument about the 0ne trillion we are spending each year that is in excess of our tax take (they agreed to talk more about that as they should.. Finally it crawled away being about almost nothing - except the pain it caused many many people..
The shutdown was a waste but from a Democratic perspective it made the system problem almost invisible for two weeks. Free time to fix the problems - unfortunately not enough time.
As far as politics the failure of the system was a technical failure. The likelihood that it would draw flack is a political reality for a system conceived and implemented by only half of us (Democrats) Releasing the system just added to the ammunition that the Republicans can use against it and the administration. Sometimes admitting to a problem can and does limit the scope of the fallout. As I have noted (and I am not a Democratic) it is a very complicated system and the administration deserves the benefit of the complexity. Why we had to have hearings to determine it might be several months before it is ready escapes me. I guess I am nowhere as political as you.
Defunding the ACA was their one big demand. Yes, we all know it wouldn't and couldn't work, but that was the one big demand. A handful of zealots held the economy hostage because Boehner was too big of a chicken to hold a vote and allow a bipartisan majority that wasn't majority Republican pass the resolution.
It was a big flop and a bad move on their part, and I agree that politically they'd have been better off quietly passing the CR and waiting to crow at the website's failures, but that's not what they did. I also don't know that the Democrats would have been so rash with the system release if they didn't have that pressure in the backdrop. That would have been a catastrophic flop. Maybe they would have. Wouldn't be the first time marketing moves to launch a product that isn't ready for prime time.
Had the politicians simply moved into Medicare for ALL Obama wouldn't be faced with this mess of reinventing the wheel. ACA is not anywhere near a great success as yet because no one can be sure how many ways the website may still be flawed,
Due to the incompetency of the designer...... who should be fired.
Kathleen Sebelius should not be fired. The designer was not hired to screw up.
And then: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·