.

[Wilikon]

Ronny could of been making mistakes if he were president as well, but since you are a supporter, I guess you will support him anyway, and pretend nothing has happened.

I doubt it.  I never had any illusions that Ron Paul would be a great president.  Everyone makes mistakes, particularly doing a job like that, but the AMA was designed to fail; they said so when it was passed.  The other "they" didn't want a working compromise, "they" wanted a full on single payer healthcare industry.  "They" wanted the complete destruction of the "evil" insurance industry, under the presumption that a government bureaucracy is actually less evil than a corporate bureaucracy.  There is no evidence to assume that a monopoly on critical service is likely to be better than what we had, and much evidence to suggest that it would be worse over time.  No matter how well intended, never forget that, eventually, those people that you might believe are not out for themselves will lose power over these kinds of bureaucracies, and you enemy will be in control of your health care.  There's a good chance that will occur right about the time of your life that you actually need such care.  The AMA does, provablely, permit the establishment of "death panels"; so even if the Democrats are too nice to do such a thing to your grandmother, do you trust that the Republicans are too nice to do that to you?

Yes, so "IF" Ronny was president, He would of been making mistakes, but you would be supportive about him right? If not, then every president is going to be making mistakes, its life.

Supportive, yes; but I would still advocate the correction of mistakes.  The AMA isn't a mistake, however, it's palying out better than they planned.

It is indeed.  I see that about 9 million people have gotten cover so far and your Democratic party is talking about Obamacare being a net positive for them.  

However, I still think you will run up against the problem that the US gives patent monopoly holders way too much bargaining power.  The reason US medical costs are so high are not down to insurance vs. single payer as such but that patent holders are allowed to charge different people different prices for the same drug.  "Death panels" like the UK's NICE are not essential (I know you guys have no problem with paying more) but they are very useful.  

You see when a president has more morals, he does what most Americans want, and those who didn't want it, are very mad at that president. Ive done allot of studying on the presidents of america in high school. All of them aren't perfect.

So the more Drone missions killing babies the "more morals" he has? The more broad NSA/Snowden chasing re authorization by his signature over and over is what most Americans want because he has more morals?

In that case he is surely the most more bestest moraled American president ever  

Are you testing me boy? Jk, Talk to Hilary Clinton, She the war supervisor.

Testing you? Testing You? With all the studying you did on the presidents of america in high school I would not dare...

I wonder if he ever learned who the Commander in Chief is.

Don't let him know. This could crush all that more morals cloud stuff down.

Yeah.

And we could play THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC2tlNmz4ao

and then we could tell him what it REALLY WAS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eR0mJfGhbk

"Talk to Hilary Clinton, She the war supervisor."

[Explodicle]

(Snip)

There seems to be a lot of people horrified at the idea of health as an affordable service.  Its as if having paid way too much for way too many years, they now feel that admitting they were ripped off would make them look like fools.

Have you asked them which part of the service they find horrifying? I haven't heard anyone say the problem is that it's too affordable. IMHO it seems like most people here don't like it because it's mandatory, but if health care was optional and affordable they'd be happy.

[Spendulus]

(Snip)

There seems to be a lot of people horrified at the idea of health as an affordable service.  Its as if having paid way too much for way too many years, they now feel that admitting they were ripped off would make them look like fools.

Have you asked them which part of the service they find horrifying? I haven't heard anyone say the problem is that it's too affordable. IMHO it seems like most people here don't like it because it's mandatory, but if health care was optional and affordable they'd be happy.

Why the fuck should I like it?  It's increased my premiums by > 50% and I think that's just the beginning.  The average family in the middle class can not afford this.

[Hawker]

(Snip)

There seems to be a lot of people horrified at the idea of health as an affordable service.  Its as if having paid way too much for way too many years, they now feel that admitting they were ripped off would make them look like fools.

Have you asked them which part of the service they find horrifying? I haven't heard anyone say the problem is that it's too affordable. IMHO it seems like most people here don't like it because it's mandatory, but if health care was optional and affordable they'd be happy.

Why the fuck should I like it?  It's increased my premiums by > 50% and I think that's just the beginning.  The average family in the middle class can not afford this.

Well, you are the one that says the US should not have single payer.  You can't reasonably complain that the cost of your insurance has risen now can you? 

[MoonShadow]

(Snip)

There seems to be a lot of people horrified at the idea of health as an affordable service.  Its as if having paid way too much for way too many years, they now feel that admitting they were ripped off would make them look like fools.

Have you asked them which part of the service they find horrifying? I haven't heard anyone say the problem is that it's too affordable. IMHO it seems like most people here don't like it because it's mandatory, but if health care was optional and affordable they'd be happy.

Why the fuck should I like it?  It's increased my premiums by > 50% and I think that's just the beginning.  The average family in the middle class can not afford this.

Well, you are the one that says the US should not have single payer.  You can't reasonably complain that the cost of your insurance has risen now can you? 

The costs of single payer are just hidden in your taxes.  It's not necessarily cheaper, and almost certainly not more equitable.

[Spendulus]

(Snip)

There seems to be a lot of people horrified at the idea of health as an affordable service.  Its as if having paid way too much for way too many years, they now feel that admitting they were ripped off would make them look like fools.

Have you asked them which part of the service they find horrifying? I haven't heard anyone say the problem is that it's too affordable. IMHO it seems like most people here don't like it because it's mandatory, but if health care was optional and affordable they'd be happy.

Why the fuck should I like it?  It's increased my premiums by > 50% and I think that's just the beginning.  The average family in the middle class can not afford this.

Well, you are the one that says the US should not have single payer.  You can't reasonably complain that the cost of your insurance has risen now can you? 

The costs of single payer are just hidden in your taxes.  It's not necessarily cheaper, and almost certainly not more equitable.

and the insurance company bailouts have not even started yet...

[compro01]

It's not necessarily cheaper

Right, single payer is "not necessarily" cheaper, but in reality, all extant examples are.

[Spendulus]

It's not necessarily cheaper

Right, single payer is "not necessarily" cheaper, but in reality, all extant examples are.

There is no kind of Washington DC organized and controlled scheme in the USA, including healthcare of any sort, which will be delivered cheaper.  Single or trillion-payer.  Although of course some people will definitely get it free.

As we now see the premiums skyrocket, just like some of us said would happen.  Which is the opposite from what the Obamanoids said and promised.  "The average family will save 2500 per year".

Evidence of INCREASED COSTS for the socialist health care plan exists.  Evidence of short term additional cost increases exist.  Increase benefits?  Let kids stay on parents plan longer?  Cover the poor?  All are increased costs that have to be spread among those who actually pay in.  6th grade math, their costs go up.

Please don't try to argue against these realities by arguing that "Oh, you just don't have the RIGHT socialist plan.  It needs to be tinkered with and these parameters adjusted - then everything will be okay".

That's insanity.  Prices are going up.  Period.  That's the reality.

[Wilikon]

Insurance companies are still trying to sort out cases of so-called health insurance orphans, customers for whom the government has a record that they enrolled, but the insurer does not. They are worried the process will grow more cumbersome as they deal with the flood of new customers who signed up in December as enrollment deadlines neared.

The government says the problem is real but under control. Officials say the total number of problem cases they are trying to resolve with insurers currently stands at about 13,000. That includes orphan records. More than 1 million people have signed up through the federal insurance market that serves 36 states. Officials contend the error rate for new signups is close to zero.

Insurers, however, are less enthusiastic about the pace of the fixes. The companies also are seeing cases in which the government has assigned the same identification number to more than one person, as well as so-called “ghost” files in which the insurer has an enrollment record but the government does not.

But orphaned files — when the insurer has no record of enrollment — are particularly concerning because the companies have no automated way to identify the presumed policyholder. They say they have to manually compare the lists of enrollees the government sends them with their own records because the government never built an automated system that would do the work much faster.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-insurers-no-record-them-171226952.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess those in favor of this law will find it is an acceptable level of ERR....

[Wilikon]

One in five Democrats now opposes ObamaCare, a record high, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll. And more than one in six Democrats now say they want it repealed, another new high.

Overall, 55% of the public oppose the law, the highest since IBD/TIPP started asking this question in 2010. Just 37% support ObamaCare, matching a record low.

And while support for outright repeal of the law inched down in January, that was because it fell among Republicans and independents. Among Democrats, support for repeal jumped 4 points.

ObamaCare is also clearly driving down President Obama’s approval rating, which dropped to just 38% in January from 43% in November. Among Democrats, Obama’s approval has dropped 10 points since November.

Obama also has fallen to all-time lows in the IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index. At 42.6, his support is lower than President George W. Bush’s in the wake of his administration’s poor handling of Hurricane Katrina.

http://news.investors.com/010914-685705-obamacare-obama-support-hit-record-lows-in-new-poll.htm

[Spendulus]

Insurance companies are still trying to sort out cases of so-called health insurance orphans, customers for whom the government has a record that they enrolled, but the insurer does not. They are worried the process will grow more cumbersome as they deal with the flood of new customers who signed up in December as enrollment deadlines neared.

The government says the problem is real but under control. Officials say the total number of problem cases they are trying to resolve with insurers currently stands at about 13,000. That includes orphan records. More than 1 million people have signed up through the federal insurance market that serves 36 states. Officials contend the error rate for new signups is close to zero.

Insurers, however, are less enthusiastic about the pace of the fixes. The companies also are seeing cases in which the government has assigned the same identification number to more than one person, as well as so-called “ghost” files in which the insurer has an enrollment record but the government does not.

But orphaned files — when the insurer has no record of enrollment — are particularly concerning because the companies have no automated way to identify the presumed policyholder. They say they have to manually compare the lists of enrollees the government sends them with their own records because the government never built an automated system that would do the work much faster.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-insurers-no-record-them-171226952.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess those in favor of this law will find it is an acceptable level of ERR....

Obviously an opportunity.  For another Big Socialist Fix.

[Wilikon]

Insurance companies are still trying to sort out cases of so-called health insurance orphans, customers for whom the government has a record that they enrolled, but the insurer does not. They are worried the process will grow more cumbersome as they deal with the flood of new customers who signed up in December as enrollment deadlines neared.

The government says the problem is real but under control. Officials say the total number of problem cases they are trying to resolve with insurers currently stands at about 13,000. That includes orphan records. More than 1 million people have signed up through the federal insurance market that serves 36 states. Officials contend the error rate for new signups is close to zero.

Insurers, however, are less enthusiastic about the pace of the fixes. The companies also are seeing cases in which the government has assigned the same identification number to more than one person, as well as so-called “ghost” files in which the insurer has an enrollment record but the government does not.

But orphaned files — when the insurer has no record of enrollment — are particularly concerning because the companies have no automated way to identify the presumed policyholder. They say they have to manually compare the lists of enrollees the government sends them with their own records because the government never built an automated system that would do the work much faster.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-insurers-no-record-them-171226952.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess those in favor of this law will find it is an acceptable level of ERR....

Obviously an opportunity.  For another Big Socialist Fix.

...By the same company that built healthcare.gov on the first place. The fact the boss was a princeton classmate with michelle obama is pure coincidence; her company got the deal, only her company.

[Wilikon]

“We are becoming increasingly concerned about momentum that is quickly building among some leading conservatives for elimination of the risk corridor and reinsurance programs,” [Blue Cross Blue Shield Association CEO Scott] Serota wrote…

“Their efforts, along with growing support for repealing the risk corridor and reinsurance programs, could combine to create a perfect storm to, at a minimum, dissuade the Administration from modifying risk corridor program rules to provide increased funding in light of the recent ‘transitional policy’ allowing insurers to offer consumers the option to renew their 2013 health plans for 2014,” Serota wrote.

In attached talking points, seemingly directed at Republican lawmakers opposed to risk corridors and reinsurance, BCBSA is asking members to argue that eliminating the risk corridors will lead to the eventual downfall of Obamacare and lead to a single-payer system: “It jeopardizes the entire private health insurance market and will ultimately lead to a single-payer system. Furthermore, it will close the door to pro-competitive health care reform alternatives.”

One bolded talking point, “use with appropriate audiences only,” charges that “eliminating these programs will result in massive premium increases and could cause private insurers to become insolvent.” In Serota’s email, however, this point is intended for Democrats only.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/lobbying-talking-points-show-insurer-freak-out-over-potentia

[Wilikon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAkXih99fvc


Robert Laszewski—a prominent consultant to health insurance companies—recently wrote in a remarkably candid blog post that, while Obamacare is almost certain to cause insurance costs to skyrocket even higher than it already has, “insurers won’t be losing a lot of sleep over it.”  How can this be?  Because insurance companies won’t bear the cost of their own losses—at least not more than about a quarter of them.  The other three-quarters will be borne by American taxpayers.

For some reason, President Obama hasn’t talked about this particular feature of his signature legislation.  Indeed, it’s bad enough that Obamacare is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to funnel $1,071,000,000,000.00 (that’s $1.071 trillion) over the next decade (2014 to 2023) from American taxpayers, through Washington, to health insurance companies.  It’s even worse that Obamacare is trying to coerce Americans into buying those same insurers’ product (although there are escape routes).  It’s almost unbelievable that it will also subsidize those same insurers’ losses.

But that’s exactly what it will do—unless Republicans take action.  As Laszewski explains, Obamacare contains a “Reinsurance Program that caps big claim costs for insurers (individual plans only).”  He writes that “in 2014, 80% of individual costs between $45,000 and $250,000 are paid by the government [read: by taxpayers], for example.”

In other words, insurance purchased through Obamacare’s government-run exchanges isn’t even full-fledged private insurance; rather, it’s a sort of private-public hybrid.  Private insurance companies pay for costs below $45,000, then taxpayers generously pick up the tab—a tab that their president hasn’t ever bothered to tell them he has opened up on their behalf—for four-fifths of the next $200,000-plus worth of costs.  In this way, and so many others, Obamacare takes a major step toward the government monopoly over American medicine (“single payer”) that liberals drool about in their sleep.

Laszewski adds, “The reinsurance program has done and will continue to do what it was intended to do; help attract and keep more carriers in Obamacare than might have otherwise come.”  Thus, Obamacare is being aided by having taxpayers subsidize big insurance companies’ business expenses.  (Who could ever have guessed that big government and big business might be natural allies?)

But, amazingly, it doesn’t stop there.  Laszewski writes that Obamacare also contains a “Risk Corridor Program that limits overall losses for insurers.”  So insurers not only don’t have to pay out all of their costs; they also don’t have to swallow all of their losses.

Laszewski explains that if an insurance company expects its costs in a given year to be X, and those costs end up being more than X plus 2 percent, taxpayers will come to that insurance company’s rescue—thanks to Obamacare.  In fact, once an insurance company covers that initial 2 percent in unexpected costs, taxpayers will cover at least 80 percent of any additional costs the insurer accrues.

Laszewski provides a couple of examples to help illustrate taxpayers’ unwitting generosity toward these “participating health plans” (plans sold through Obamacare’s government-run exchanges):

“f the health plan has costs at 110% of the medical cost target [the costs that the insurer expects to accrue], it will be responsible for only 102.4% of the target (a 2.4% shortfall)—only about a quarter of its losses.

“If the health plan’s medical costs come in at 120% of the expected claim cost target level, the health plan will only be responsible for 104.4% of the target (a 4.4% shortfall)—again only about a quarter of its losses.”

It’s actually only about a fifth in this example, as taxpayers would cover 78 percent of the losses, with the insurer covering just 22 percent.

Importantly, Laszewski (who’s in a position to know) says that “my sense is that health plans, because they are so insulated from big losses, will generally stand pat with their 2014 rate structures for 2015—no matter how bad the early claims experience looks.  I expect that the health insurance industry will be content to give the Obama administration one more chance to reboot Obamacare in the fall of 2014, when the 2015 open enrollment takes place.”

In other words, because taxpayers will bail them out (through both the “Reinsurance Program” and the “Risk Corridor Program”), insurers won’t raise their premiums as much for 2015 as they otherwise would in response to the sicker, older risk pools that Obamacare is clearly attracting.  This in turn will make Obamacare look better going forward than it should and will give its government-run exchanges another good swing at the “young invincibles,” who so far don’t seem too enamored with the product that Obama and his insurance cronies are hawking.

All of this puts two things in sharp relief:  First, Republicans should attach a no-bailout provision to any debt-ceiling increase—as Charles Krauthammer has suggested—along with a provision delaying Obamacare’s liberty-sapping individual mandate (the delay of which would further undermine Obamacare’s exchanges).  Second, Obamacare needs to be comprehensively repealed in January 2017, not modified or “fixed”—and Republicans need to advance a winning alternative to pave the way to that crucial result.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bailing-out-health-insurers-and-helping-obamacare_774167.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bailing Out Health Insurers
Bailing Out Health Insurers
Bailing Out Health Insurers
Bailing Out Health Insurers
Bailing Out Health Insurers
Bailing Out Health Insurers
Bailing Out Health Insurers..... Cooked in the law. Now it will happen. It is Ok as we ALL LOVE Bailing Out Health Insurers

[Wilikon]

The federal government's HealthCare.gov website continues to be riddled with flaws that expose confidential user data to the public, a security expert testified Thursday at a hearing on Capitol Hill.

David Kennedy, founder of security firm TrustedSec, told members of the House of Representatives Science Committee that only one of 18 issues he reported in November had been fixed, and even then he identified ways that attackers could bypass the remedy. Kennedy didn't discuss specifics of the vulnerabilities out of concern that details would make it easier for criminals to exploit the weaknesses. Generally, he said some of the weaknesses leaked usernames, e-mail addresses, and other data contained in user profiles onto the open Internet, making it possible for unauthorized people to access the information using Google or other search engines. The testimony came as top security officials from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which helps oversee HealthCare.gov, were appearing before a separate House hearing.

"TrustedSec cannot state with 100 percent certainty that the back-end infrastructure is vulnerable," Kennedy wrote in a statement submitted in advance of Thursday's proceedings. "However, based on our extensive experience performing application security assessments for over 10 years, the website has the symptoms that lead to large-scale breaches for large organizations. Also note that all exposures have been reported, and TrustedSec would be more than willing to have discussions with HHS to address the security concerns."

HealthCare.gov is the portal website that administers Obamacare in 36 states. The difficulty it had scaling to levels of even basic public interest during its rollout in October badly tarnished what is arguably President Obama's signature legislation. Shortly after the launch, Kennedy and several other security experts also criticized the site for failing to follow established practices for protecting user data. In November, Kennedy warned of 18 vulnerabilities. Since then, he said he has learned of at least 20 more from fellow researchers.

In his testimony, he wrote:

TrustedSec’s opinion still holds strong that the website fails to meet even basic security practices for protecting sensitive information of individuals and does not provide adequate levels of protection for the website itself. This opinion is not unique, as other security researchers such as Bob Rich did extensive reconnaissance on the website and notified multiple areas of the federal government without response. Additionally, a second researcher, Scott White from TrustedSec, also worked on the discovery of what we know today on healthcare.gov. At this time, the risk is still present at healthcare.gov and there has been little effort to address the concerns identified by multiple security researchers. The healthcare.gov security threats demonstrate a much larger problem for the federal government in general. The lack of formal security testing and proactive security measures to which to adhere in the federal government is alarming.
Officials with the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services, the agency that runs the Obamacare site, issued a statement. "To date, there have been no successful security attacks on Healthcare.gov and no person or group has maliciously accessed personally identifiable information from the site." At Thursday's separate hearing before the House Oversight Committee, the chief information security officer for the agency further defended the security of HealthCare.gov.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/01/healthcare-gov-riddled-with-flaws-that-could-expose-user-data-experts-say/

[Wilikon]

The man who appeared before Congress last week to explain the security pitfalls of HealthCare.gov took to Fox News on Sunday to explain just how easy it was to penetrate the website.

Hacking expert David Kennedy told Fox’s Chris Wallace that gaining access to 70,000 personal records of Obamacare enrollees via HealthCare.gov took about 4 minutes and required nothing more than a standard browser, the Daily Caller reported.

“And 70,000 was just one of the numbers that I was able to go up to and I stopped after that,” he said. “You know, I’m sure it’s hundreds of thousands, if not more, and it was done within about a 4 minute timeframe. So, it’s just wide open.”

“You can literally just open up your browser, go to this, and extract all this information without actually having to hack the website itself,” he said.

Mr. Kennedy testified before Congress Thursday that HealthCare.gov was “100 percent” insecure, Washington Free Beaconreported.

“What we learned was that they had rushed through what we call the software development life cycle where they actually build the application,” he said on Fox. “So when you do that, security doesn’t really get integrated into it. And what happened with the rocky launch in October is they slapped a bunch of servers in trying to fix the website just to keep it up and running so that people could actually go and use it. The problem is they still didn’t imbed any security into it.”

“It’s not just myself that’s saying this website is insecure, it’s also seven other independent security researchers that also looked at the research I’ve done and came to the exact same conclusion,” he said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/19/hacking-expert-david-kennedy-says-he-cracked-healt/

[MoonShadow]

Yeah.  For a time, even the county by county list of the "navigators" home addresses were easily accessible. Someone I know personally might have downloaded ALL of them, while I watched. Maybe.

You don't really even want to work for these guys.

[Mike Christ]

This is what happens when people spend other people's money; this is why no identity thief regrets his purchases.

[Wilikon]

Yeah.  For a time, even the county by county list of the "navigators" home addresses were easily accessible. Someone I know personally might have downloaded ALL of them, while I watched. Maybe.

You don't really even want to work for these guys.

This is insane. As if none of the $600M were used for building that website. A free blogger or tumblr account is more secure than the place the law forces you to share all of your family and personal data...

[MoonShadow]

Yeah.  For a time, even the county by county list of the "navigators" home addresses were easily accessible. Someone I know personally might have downloaded ALL of them, while I watched. Maybe.

You don't really even want to work for these guys.

This is insane. As if none of the $600M were used for building that website. A free blogger or tumblr account is more secure than the place the law forces you to share all of your family and personal data...

In fairness, the insecurity isn't due to the website itself, but due to the interconnectedness that is required between servers owned by government agencies and private insurance companies.  It's the interconnectedness that is difficult to manage.  To put it simply, the complexity of intergrating hundreds of independently operated servers, running completely different sets of OS's and software, requires a default that favors openness for functionality. 

It was predicted in advance, that the ACA was impossible to impliment in a secure manner.