The Affordable Care Act is Coming Home to Roost

[B-Man]

Why does Sebelius still have a job if “nobody’s madder than” Obama over Healthcare.gov debacle?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Eight Biggest Falsehoods in Obama’s Rose Garden Speech: The President mounts a factually challenged defense of Obamacare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Update from Glenn Reynolds: A reader emails about classism in the ObamaCare setup:

 

 

With regard to the ACA roll out, one of the things that is striking to me is how different the new insurance enrollees who receive press coverage seem than the majority of uninsured patients with whom I deal as a physician. In general, those highlighted in the press seem well-educated, self-motivated, and well-organized rather than living the very difficult, impoverished, chaotic, and marginalized lives that many of my uninsured patients need to navigate.

Perhaps this just reflects PR spin or journalistic biases toward individuals who are more like themselves, but I don’t think so.

 

Rather, my impression is that the healthcare.gov website (when functional) will serve the needs of people like my neighbor, who is the graduate of an elite business school and who struggled to find insurance in the 18 months he was unemployed after selling his company. However, I just can’t see a lot of my patients having the wherewithal to go online, navigate the long and confusing process, and ultimately sign up and pay for a plan that costs “only” a few hundred dollars per month. Healthier uninsured individuals in whom health issues and costs aren’t in the first tier of their daily challenges seem even less likely to do so.

 

In short, I suspect that the website and the ACA enrollment plan in general were designed by individuals without a good feel for the needs of the people they intended to serve. Rather it was designed for people fundamentally like themselves (educated, upper middle class) who lack health insurance but lack for much else.

Even when the website is fixed, this will be a huge problem.

 

As I tell my Administrative Law students, poor people don’t deal well with bureaucracies, something you find out over and over again.

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/177916/

[Koko78]

As I tell my Administrative Law students, poor people don’t deal well with bureaucracies, something you find out over and over again.

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/177916/

 

I would respectfully disagree with this statement. Poor people are professionals at navigating complex bureaucracies to obtain benefits.

[B-Man]

That's RACISM, straight up, thats what that is: Obamacare Site for Spanish Speakers Has Never Worked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JAMES TARANTO: Vaporcare: Obama delivers an infomercial when an accounting is due.

 

“The Affordable Care Act is not just a website,” President Obama said at the Rose Garden today. “It’s much more.” It’s like a chamois, it’s like a towel, it’s like a sponge.

 

Another way of putting it is that ObamaCare isn’t just a technical failure. And it isn’t just an economically unsustainable scheme. Now it’s a rhetorical disaster too. Even by the standards of Obama speeches it was terrible. It was so bad, it was the ObamaCare website of political oratory.

 

Fine, blame us. After all, we called for an Obama speech. But remember that what we called for–it was right there in the subheadline–was an accounting. What he gave us was an infomercial.

 

All sham, no wow.

[IDBillzFan]

All sham, no wow.

 

Relax, you two. Obamacare is a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

[B-Man]

Relax, you two. Obamacare is a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

 

heh........back when Chevy was funny.

 

 

À La Recherche de Promesses Perdues

By Charles C. W. Cooke

 

Sarah Kliff, who usually writes for the Washington Post’s Wonkblog, has written a handy Poynter guide for the media. In it, Kliff instructs journalists how they might best cover Obamacare, and stay clear of “the common mistakes that I’ve made before, have seen others stumble on and hope you can avoid.” One of these mistakes jumped out at me:

 

Comparing premiums from before and after the health care law.

The health care law will dramatically upend the individual insurance market beginning Jan. 1. That makes comparing premiums from before the health law to those offered afterwards a bit like comparing apples to oranges — or even apples to steak.

 

Here’s why: The health care law makes four big changes to the individual insurance market. First, it requires health insurance plans to cover all subscribers regardless of whether they have any pre-existing health conditions.

This will likely increase premiums

, as insurers will have to accept sick patients who, right now, they reject.

{snip}

 

This is a fair argument in and of itself, and it is similar to arguments that have recently been made by Ezra Klein, Jonathan Chait, and Jonathan Cohn. Funnily enough, it’s also similar to arguments that conservatives have made for years. This is to say that, despite the flat insistence of the Obama administration and of the law’s advocates, it was always extremely obvious that there was no way that Obamacare could lower everybody’s premiums while doing everything else it promised. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Ms. Kliff, who offers her opinion here because she has “spent the past four years writing about the Affordable Care Act for two different newspapers,” is confused as to why journalists might be interested in comparing ”premiums from before and after the healthcare law.” Well, if she genuinely doesn’t know, here’s a helpful primer: Because the president promised flatly they wouldn’t go up.

 

I have written at length about this, so I won’t rehash the whole thing here. But I will say this: It is absolutely vital that the Left not be allowed to move these goalposts. Yes, Obamacare structurally guarantees that premiums will go up for some people. But what was promised, remember, was this:

Before, during, and after passage, Americans were promised that Obamacare was going to lower premiums for “everyone” (the goal of merely maintaining premiums being too modest);

 

it was not going to interfere with anybody’s health care or health insurance if they already had it;

 

and it was not going change anybody’s patient-doctor relationship.

 

The message was unmistakable:

All the government wanted to do was extend health insurance to people who didn’t have it. This wouldn’t affect you.

No need to worry. Period. Move along.

 

That an economics writer of Kliff’s influence is trying deliberately to obfuscate the issue is telling. Whatever the implications of her advice, the argument made in favor of Obamacare was not that the market needed remaking and that there would be inevitably winners and losers, but that everybody would win and nobody would lose. Judging by local media coverage, many people are surprised at what is happening because they remember the promises. Conservatives must ensure that they are not allowed to forget.

[IDBillzFan]

This is from the Colorado Consumer Health Initiate.

 

No, I'm not kidding.

 

[Alaska Darin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2Qtx_ZcHOjw

[IDBillzFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2Qtx_ZcHOjw

 

Just saw this article stating how suddenly John Stewart is Obama's biggest problem with Obamacare.

 

The law doesn't work without heavy enrollment from the millions of young Americans who turn to Stewart for their news.

 

President Obama and his administration have made it quite clear that one of the big beneficiaries of the law should be young people. “Already, millions of young adults have been able to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26,” Obama trumpeted in a speech defending the Affordable Care Act on Oct. 1. On Monday, in an address designed to calm worries about the problems with the healthcare.gov Web site, Obama specifically referenced three young people standing behind him who had been able to stay on their parents’ insurance until they were 26 and added: “Millions of other young people are currently benefiting from that part of the law.”

 

But, these same young people tend to get much of their news — and therefore have their opinions shaped — not by places like the Washington Post or the CBS Evening News but rather from Stewart. He is their Tom Brokaw, their David Brinkley. So, what Stewart says matters — a lot.

 

How might President Obama solve his “Stewart” problem? Maybe appear on the show — as he has done six times before, including twice as president. Stewart would, undoubtedly, challenge Obama on the problems with the site but would also give the president a platform by which he could address the growing public perception that the law (or at least the Web site) just isn’t working

.

[B-Man]

My favorite part of Stewart's "report"

 

 

Jon Stewart: 'When Did the President of the United States Turn Into Gil From The Simpsons?'

 

JON STEWART: Turns out the ObamaCare rollout was plagued by a lot more than just glitches, so much so the President of the United States - who as you know, does not usually man this country's IT support center - summoned us all this morning to the Rose Garden for a little “Glengarry Glenn Ross” closer spiel.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The Affordable Care Act is not just a website. The health insurance that’s available to people is working just fine. Instead of paying $1600 per month, we have a plan that will only cost us $692 a month, and that’s a good deal. The product is good. I want people to get this great product, and that product is working. It's really good.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

STEWART AFTER FACEPALMING: [Laughter] When did the President of the United States turn into Gil from The Simpsons? [Laughter]

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

 

GIL GUNDERSON, The SIMPSONS: She's a beaut. You can't beat a Coleco. How many can I put you down for? A lot. Please say a lot, I need this.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

[Laughter]

 

STEWART: This is a good product. Alright. But listen. [Cheers and applause] He didn't stop baby. Ron Popeil kept on selling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

OBAMA: You just heard Janice’s story. She owns her own small business. She recently became the first woman to enroll in coverage through Delaware’s exchange.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

STEWART: So that's one. [Laughter]

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/22/jon-stewart-when-did-president-united-states-turn-gil-simpsons#ixzz2iUdK8Umh

[/dev/null]

Jon Stewart: 'When Did the President of the United States Turn Into Gil From The Simpsons?'

 

And the best part is when they work out the bugs on their website and you buy your plan from Ol' Gil, you get to have your Health Care run by Patti and Selma

 

[B-Man]

 

Steny Hoyer wants more money to fix Obamacare exchanges

 

Rep. Steny Hoyer wants to give President Obama more money to help fix the costly federal health care exchanges that have been roiled by problems since they launched at the beginning of the month.

 

Asked Tuesday how Congress could help improve the system by which millions of Americans must buy insurance by the end of the year, the House minority whip and Maryland Democrat said, "We can give them a little money."

 

"[Republicans have] been pretty much focused in the House of Representatives on undermining the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in every which way that we possibly could," he said.

 

Hoyer admitted that he does not know whether the project, which has already cost more than $400 million, has faced funding problems. "I don't think that's the reason," he said. "If I know that, I'll blame it."

 

The federal exchanges, the online marketplace for the uninsured to purchase insurance in 36 states, went live on Oct. 1. But the millions of Americans who have visited the site have been stonewalled by error messages, and most have been unable to buy coverage.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/steny-hoyer-wants-more-money-to-fix-obamacare-exchanges/article/2537600

 

 

The more Obamacare fails, the more Dems will want to throw your $ at it.. . . . . . . . . lol

 

The best part of the Hoyer story is him admitting that he has no idea if the site needs more money or not.. . . . . . . with dems. . . . Who cares?

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

 

 

 

http://washingtonexa...article/2537600

 

 

The more Obamacare fails, the more Dems will want to throw your $ at it.. . . . . . . . . lol

 

The best part of the Hoyer story is him admitting that he has no idea if the site needs more money or not.. . . . . . . with dems. . . . Who cares?

 

 

I have no idea how Steny Hoyer keeps getting reelected...

 

...oh, wait, yes I do. It's the Democratic People's Republic Maryland.

[Doc]

Just saw this article stating how suddenly John Stewart is Obama's biggest problem with Obamacare.

 

The law doesn't work without heavy enrollment from the millions of young Americans who turn to Stewart for their news.

 

 

.

So...Obamacare needs young and healthy people to pay more than before for health insurance for care they'll barely use, so as to subsidize the sick who will be paying less than before and consume a lot of health care...and they allowed them to stay on their parents' plans until they're 26?

[DC Tom]

Just saw this article stating how suddenly John Stewart is Obama's biggest problem with Obamacare.

 

The law doesn't work without heavy enrollment from the millions of young Americans who turn to Stewart for their news.

 

And of course the problem is that "Jon Stewart doesn't support Obamacare." Not "Jon Stewart is a comedian, yet millions of young people look to him for their information."

 

If you're relying on a COMEDIAN to deliver your message, you've got very, very big problems. Irony aside.

 

So...Obamacare needs young and healthy people to pay more than before for health insurance for care they'll barely use, so as to subsidize the sick who will be paying less than before and consume a lot of health care...and they allowed them to stay on their parents' plans until they're 26?

 

This is the point where birddog tells us we just have to give that a chance to see that it works.

[B-Man]

I have no idea how Steny Hoyer keeps getting reelected...

 

...oh, wait, yes I do. It's the Democratic People's Republic Maryland.

 

How about this winner Tom ?

 

Henry Waxman

 

 

Waxman: Let’s get real, these ObamaCare glitches are the private sector’s fault

 

You might have thought that the ultimate culpability for the current problems plaguing ObamaCare belong to the administration that sloppily designed, forcefully passed, and hastily implemented the gigantic redistribution project — but you would have been wrong. Ranking Democrat of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the one holding the health care hearing this Thursday, is here to tell you why:

KIRSTEN WELKER: Based on what you know right now, was the president or Secretary Sebelius made aware of those problems before this system was launched?

 

WAXMAN: I don’t have any information about that, but no one could have possibly known how bad the system would work when it was implemented all across the country for the millions of people that want insurance and have tried to access the website. So if it worked well for a smaller group, turned out it didn’t work well enough for a larger group. That often happens. …

 

WELKER: Congressman, just very quickly, yes or no, should Secretary Sebelius keep her job?

 

HENRY WAXMAN: Absolutely. There’s no reason for her not to continue on as secretary. She’s done a terrific job. I have a great deal of confidence in her. She doesn’t know about all technicalities. That was contracted out to the private sector,

and the private sector with all the money they got, couldn’t develop the website that we needed. It shouldn’t have been done by government, but we should have had more competent people in the private sector, and if anybody’s head should roll, it should be the contractors who didn’t live up to their contractual responsibility.

 

Firstly, “no one could have possibly known how bad the system would work,” really? The failures in the beta-testing phase — you know, the one they started in the week before the enrollment period — wasn’t a huge giveaway?

 

Secondly, if indeed the involved contractors “couldn’t develop the website that we needed” and “didn’t live up to their contractual responsibility,” then in turn, whose fault is that? It couldn’t be… the people who hired those contractors and/or assigned them an impossible task, could it?!

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/22/waxman-lets-get-real-these-obamacare-glitches-are-the-private-sectors-fault/

[DC Tom]

How about this winner Tom ?

 

Henry Waxman

 

 

 

http://hotair.com/ar...-sectors-fault/

 

That's typical government garbage.

 

"You didn't give us what we wanted!"

"No, I delivered what you contractually obligated me to deliver. Which I told you wasn't what you wanted, but you didn't listen. Had I given you what you wanted, instead of what you contracted, I would be breaking the terms of a federal contract and committing a felony."

 

In this case...exactly that. HHS contractually required the development contractor deliver the system before FY2014. They required the IV&V contractor to verify functionality. When their IV&V contractor told them it didn't work...didn't matter, because HHS's requirement was delivery, not functionality.

 

The end result of this, of course, can only be tighter government control of the process, which perversely with a process so broken will only exacerbate the problem.

[Bronc24]

I will admit I don't know all the ins and outs of Obamacare. In my province, medicare works just fine, but we are an entire province of just over a million people. My wife just had a c section and I was ecstatic with the level of care.

 

Having said that, it works here because we are small and the system grew up with it. I cannot fathom how this would be implemented in a country of 350 million who have private care. It seems, to me, to be logistically impossible.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2013 by Marauder24

[3rdnlng]

That's typical government garbage.

 

"You didn't give us what we wanted!"

"No, I delivered what you contractually obligated me to deliver. Which I told you wasn't what you wanted, but you didn't listen. Had I given you what you wanted, instead of what you contracted, I would be breaking the terms of a federal contract and committing a felony."

 

In this case...exactly that. HHS contractually required the development contractor deliver the system before FY2014. They required the IV&V contractor to verify functionality. When their IV&V contractor told them it didn't work...didn't matter, because HHS's requirement was delivery, not functionality.

 

The end result of this, of course, can only be tighter government control of the process, which perversely with a process so broken will only exacerbate the problem.

 

This kind of post is why I haven't put you on "ignore" you big prick.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

That's typical government garbage.

 

"You didn't give us what we wanted!"

"No, I delivered what you contractually obligated me to deliver. Which I told you wasn't what you wanted, but you didn't listen. Had I given you what you wanted, instead of what you contracted, I would be breaking the terms of a federal contract and committing a felony."

 

In this case...exactly that. HHS contractually required the development contractor deliver the system before FY2014. They required the IV&V contractor to verify functionality. When their IV&V contractor told them it didn't work...didn't matter, because HHS's requirement was delivery, not functionality.

 

The end result of this, of course, can only be tighter government control of the process, which perversely with a process so broken will only exacerbate the problem.

 

Then what's the answer? Eliminate the contract process and go in-house more? Or is the answer to loosen the laws about about breaking the terms of a federal contract?

 

I see this (what you are talking about) happen so often (when we opt to contract out) and the gov't wastes SO much money. When it comes to IT, it was so much better when we were in-house. Everthing is a clustereff right now! When it comes to all other jobs we do where I work (which could be anything and everything... And I mean anything and everything), it is even a bigger NO if we need to contract out. We avoid the contract process @ all cost and do it ourselves! Cut right through the fat! I mean, that's the old school way, right? I know, I am just in the piddly lock & dam business... BUT it is night and day between how we get the job done and the lock right across town (downtown) gets the job done seeing that they are totally contracted out and we aren't. They won't touch anything that isn't in their contract!

 

How 'bout writing into the contract..."You will do anything and everything we tell you to do." "All duties as assigned." Then no law would be broken. I am joking of course, that could never float!

Edited October 23, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[Alaska Darin]

I will admit I don't know all the ins and outs of Obamacare. In my province, medicare works just fine, but we are an entire province of just over a million people. My wife just had a c section and I was ecstatic with the level of care.

 

Having said that, it works here because we are small and the system grew up with it. I cannot fathom how this would be implemented in a country of 350 million who have private care. It seems, to me, to be logistically impossible.

The last thing I read was something written by Daniel Hannen, a member of the British Parliament. It stated the NHS was the third largest employer in the world, with 1.3 million employees and the majority were basically paper pushers. That's on a population about one-fifth of the United States.

 

That's more employees than the DoD has military members, just for reference.

 

Then what's the answer? Eliminate the contract process and go in-house more? Or is the answer to loosen the laws about about breaking the terms of a federal contract?

 

I see this (what you are talking about) happen so often (when we opt to contract out) and the gov't wastes SO much money. When it comes to IT, it was so much better when we were in-house. Everthing is a clustereff right now! When it comes to all other jobs we do where I work (which could be anything and everything... And I mean anything and everything), it is even a bigger NO if we need to contract out. We avoid the contract process @ all cost and do it ourselves! Cut right through the fat! I mean, that's the old school way, right? I know, I am just in the piddly lock & dam business... BUT it is night and day between how we get the job done and the lock right across town (downtown) gets the job done seeing that they are totally contracted out and we aren't. They won't touch anything that isn't in their contract!

 

How 'bout writing into the contract..."You will do anything and everything we tell you to do." "All duties as assigned." Then no law would be broken. I am joking of course, that could never float!

I don't know that there's an easy answer. The government spends so much money trying not to spend money that it makes it virtually impossible to get anything done in an efficient manner.