- Jul 27, 2006
- 49,451
- 57,760
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Let me see if i have this right, bo refused to delay or even discuss delaying bo care it was "off the table" and instead shut gov down to cause as much pain as possible to the American people, going so far as to block our WWII vets from the MEMORIAL THEY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PAID FOR, NOT THE FEDS.
Now bo is going to delay bocare KNOWING all along the site was not going to work properly because they were trying to hide the true cost of the insurance...
This is the hero of the left?
Obama Official: Yes, We Might Delay Obamacare Ourselves
Yesterday, we reported that Obama might be forced to delay the individual mandate. This was based on the fact that if they donât delay it, itâll most certainly collapse â by pretty much any standard.
Now, less than 24 hours later, an Obama official at the Health and Human Services has confirmed: Obamacare could be delayed, even after Obama demanded that the government shutdown because he didnât want to delay Obamacare.
Obama Official: Yes, We Might Delay Obamacare Ourselves
----------------------------------
Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are
The Healthcare.gov website requires that individuals looking for coverage enter personal information before comparing plans. IT experts believe that this requirement is causing the website to crash.
A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacareâs federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing.
Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not youâre eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacareâs insurance plans would scare people away.
HHS didnât want users to see Obamacareâs true costs
âHealthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering, â
report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. âBut that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.â Why was it delayed? âAn HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.â (Emphasis added.)
As you know if youâve been following this space, Obamacareâs bevy of mandates, regulations, taxes, and fees drives up the cost of the insurance plans that are offered under the lawâs public exchanges. AManhattan Institute analysis I helped conduct found that, on average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under Obamacare, will be 99 percent more expensive for men, and 62 percent more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system. And those disparities are even wider for healthy people.
That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?
Political objectives trumped operational objectives.
The answer is that Obamacare wasnât designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions.
But the lawsâ supporters and enforcers donât want you to know that, because it would violate the Presidentâs incessantly repeated promise that nothing would change for the people that Obamacare doesnât directly help. If you shop for Obamacare-based coverage without knowing if you qualify for subsidies, you might be discouraged by the lawâs steep costs.
So, by analyzing your income first, if you qualify for heavy subsidies, the website can advertise those subsidies to you instead of just hitting you with Obamacareâs steep premiums. For example, the site could advertise plans that cost â$0âł or â$30âł instead of explaining that the plan really costs $200, and that youâre getting a subsidy of $200 or $170. But youâll have to be at or near the poverty line to gain subsidies of that size; most people will either not qualify for a subsidy, or qualify for a small one that, net-net, doesnât make up for the lawâs cost hikes.
This political objectiveâmasking the true underlying cost of Obamacareâs insurance plansâfar outweighed the operational objective of making the federal website work properly. Think about it the other way around. If the âAffordable Care Actâ truly did make health insurance more affordable, there would be no need to hide these prices from the public.
Subsidy verification created a traffic bottleneck.
Comparable private-sector e-commerce sites, like eHealthInsurance.com, allow you to shop for plans and compare prices simply by entering your age and your ZIP code. After youâve selected a plan you like, you fill out an on-line application. That substantially winnows down the number of people who rely on the site for network-intensive tasks.
The federal governmentâs decision to force people to apply before shopping, Weaver and Radnofsky write, âproved crucial because, before users can begin shopping for coverage, they must cross a busy digital junction in which data are swapped among separate computer systems built or run by contractors including CGI Group Inc., the healthcare.gov developer, Quality Software Services Inc., a UnitedHealth Group Inc. unit; and credit-checker Experian PLC. If any part of the web of systems fails to work properly, it could lead to a traffic jam blocking most users from the marketplace.â
Jay Angoff, a former federal official at the agency that oversees the exchange, told theJournal that he was surprised by the decision. âPeople should be able to get quotesâ without entering all of that information upfront.
Weaver and Radnofsky say that the core problem stems from âthe slate of registration systems [that] intersect with Oracle Identity Manager, a software component embedded in a government identity-checking system.â The main Healthcare.gov web page collects information using the CGI Group technology. Then that data is transferred to a system built by Quailty Software Services. QSS then sends data to Experian, the credit-history firm. But the key âidentity management systemâ employed by QSS was designed by Oracle, and according to theJournalâs sources, the Oracle software isnât playing nicely with the other information systems.
Oracle hotly denies these claims. âOur software is the identical product deployed in most of the worldâs most complex systemsâŚour software is running properly,â said an Oracle spokeswoman in a statement.
âItâs awful, just awfulâ
Robert Pear and colleagues at the New York Times have a piece up today detailing the serious problems with the federal exchange, problems that may get worse, not better. They confirm what we already knew: that the Obama administration refused to delay the implementation of the exchanges, despite the well-known problems, because they were afraid of the political blowback. âFormer government officials say the White House, which was calling the shots, feared that any backtracking would further embolden Republican critics who were trying to repeal the health care law.â
As I documented last week, IT and insurance experts have been saying for at least eight months that implementation of the exchanges was going badly, that as early as February officials were warning of a âthird world experience.â The Timesâ sources are just as blunt. âThese are not glitches,â said one insurance executive. âThe extent of the problems is pretty enormous. At the end of our [conference calls with the administration], people say, âItâs awful, just awful.ââ
âWe foresee a train wreck,â said another executive in a February interview with theTimes. âWe donât have the IT specifications. The level of angst in health plans is growing by leaps and bounds. The political people in the administration do not understand how far behind they are.â Richard Foster, the former chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said last week that âso much testing of the new system was so far behind schedule, I was not confident it would work well.â
Henry Chao, the deputy chief information officer at CMS who made the âthird world experienceâ comment, was told by his superiors that failure to meet the October 1 launch deadline âwas not an option,â according to the Times.
Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are - Forbes
Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free
Now bo is going to delay bocare KNOWING all along the site was not going to work properly because they were trying to hide the true cost of the insurance...
This is the hero of the left?
Obama Official: Yes, We Might Delay Obamacare Ourselves
Yesterday, we reported that Obama might be forced to delay the individual mandate. This was based on the fact that if they donât delay it, itâll most certainly collapse â by pretty much any standard.
Now, less than 24 hours later, an Obama official at the Health and Human Services has confirmed: Obamacare could be delayed, even after Obama demanded that the government shutdown because he didnât want to delay Obamacare.
Obama Official: Yes, We Might Delay Obamacare Ourselves
----------------------------------
Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are
The Healthcare.gov website requires that individuals looking for coverage enter personal information before comparing plans. IT experts believe that this requirement is causing the website to crash.
A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacareâs federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing.
Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not youâre eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacareâs insurance plans would scare people away.
HHS didnât want users to see Obamacareâs true costs
âHealthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering, â
report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. âBut that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.â Why was it delayed? âAn HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.â (Emphasis added.)
As you know if youâve been following this space, Obamacareâs bevy of mandates, regulations, taxes, and fees drives up the cost of the insurance plans that are offered under the lawâs public exchanges. AManhattan Institute analysis I helped conduct found that, on average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under Obamacare, will be 99 percent more expensive for men, and 62 percent more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system. And those disparities are even wider for healthy people.
That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?
Political objectives trumped operational objectives.
The answer is that Obamacare wasnât designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions.
But the lawsâ supporters and enforcers donât want you to know that, because it would violate the Presidentâs incessantly repeated promise that nothing would change for the people that Obamacare doesnât directly help. If you shop for Obamacare-based coverage without knowing if you qualify for subsidies, you might be discouraged by the lawâs steep costs.
So, by analyzing your income first, if you qualify for heavy subsidies, the website can advertise those subsidies to you instead of just hitting you with Obamacareâs steep premiums. For example, the site could advertise plans that cost â$0âł or â$30âł instead of explaining that the plan really costs $200, and that youâre getting a subsidy of $200 or $170. But youâll have to be at or near the poverty line to gain subsidies of that size; most people will either not qualify for a subsidy, or qualify for a small one that, net-net, doesnât make up for the lawâs cost hikes.
This political objectiveâmasking the true underlying cost of Obamacareâs insurance plansâfar outweighed the operational objective of making the federal website work properly. Think about it the other way around. If the âAffordable Care Actâ truly did make health insurance more affordable, there would be no need to hide these prices from the public.
Subsidy verification created a traffic bottleneck.
Comparable private-sector e-commerce sites, like eHealthInsurance.com, allow you to shop for plans and compare prices simply by entering your age and your ZIP code. After youâve selected a plan you like, you fill out an on-line application. That substantially winnows down the number of people who rely on the site for network-intensive tasks.
The federal governmentâs decision to force people to apply before shopping, Weaver and Radnofsky write, âproved crucial because, before users can begin shopping for coverage, they must cross a busy digital junction in which data are swapped among separate computer systems built or run by contractors including CGI Group Inc., the healthcare.gov developer, Quality Software Services Inc., a UnitedHealth Group Inc. unit; and credit-checker Experian PLC. If any part of the web of systems fails to work properly, it could lead to a traffic jam blocking most users from the marketplace.â
Jay Angoff, a former federal official at the agency that oversees the exchange, told theJournal that he was surprised by the decision. âPeople should be able to get quotesâ without entering all of that information upfront.
Weaver and Radnofsky say that the core problem stems from âthe slate of registration systems [that] intersect with Oracle Identity Manager, a software component embedded in a government identity-checking system.â The main Healthcare.gov web page collects information using the CGI Group technology. Then that data is transferred to a system built by Quailty Software Services. QSS then sends data to Experian, the credit-history firm. But the key âidentity management systemâ employed by QSS was designed by Oracle, and according to theJournalâs sources, the Oracle software isnât playing nicely with the other information systems.
Oracle hotly denies these claims. âOur software is the identical product deployed in most of the worldâs most complex systemsâŚour software is running properly,â said an Oracle spokeswoman in a statement.
âItâs awful, just awfulâ
Robert Pear and colleagues at the New York Times have a piece up today detailing the serious problems with the federal exchange, problems that may get worse, not better. They confirm what we already knew: that the Obama administration refused to delay the implementation of the exchanges, despite the well-known problems, because they were afraid of the political blowback. âFormer government officials say the White House, which was calling the shots, feared that any backtracking would further embolden Republican critics who were trying to repeal the health care law.â
As I documented last week, IT and insurance experts have been saying for at least eight months that implementation of the exchanges was going badly, that as early as February officials were warning of a âthird world experience.â The Timesâ sources are just as blunt. âThese are not glitches,â said one insurance executive. âThe extent of the problems is pretty enormous. At the end of our [conference calls with the administration], people say, âItâs awful, just awful.ââ
âWe foresee a train wreck,â said another executive in a February interview with theTimes. âWe donât have the IT specifications. The level of angst in health plans is growing by leaps and bounds. The political people in the administration do not understand how far behind they are.â Richard Foster, the former chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said last week that âso much testing of the new system was so far behind schedule, I was not confident it would work well.â
Henry Chao, the deputy chief information officer at CMS who made the âthird world experienceâ comment, was told by his superiors that failure to meet the October 1 launch deadline âwas not an option,â according to the Times.
Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are - Forbes
Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free
Last edited:
