Time to Start Considering Obamacare's Worst Case Scenarios
...Over the weekend, several reports suggested that, despite continued assurances that Healthcare.gov, the problem-plagued online insurance enrollment portal run by the federal government, would be running smoothly for most users by the end of the month, it increasingly looks likely that the deadline will be missed.
Insurance industry consultant Robert Laszewski, who, thanks to his contacts with his insurers, has been a critical and frequently prophetic source of information about the law’s rollout, opened a blog post this weekend with the following assessment: “It is now becoming clear that the Obama administration will not have Health.care.gov fixed by December 1 so hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of people will be able to smoothly enroll by January 1.” Laszewski says that months, not weeks, of work remain.
The dates he lists are important, and not only because of the administration’s self-imposed deadline of November 30. Anyone who wants to purchase insurance that kicks in at the beginning of next year must complete enrollment by December 15. If the system isn’t working smoothly at least a couple weeks prior to that rapidly approaching date, then large numbers of people simply won’t have a chance to sign up.
That is a potentially huge problem for a law whose central premise and promise was that it would create new opportunities for millions of people to sign up for coverage that goes into effect at the beginning of 2014.
It’s a problem that would be big enough on its own, but is now compounded by the fact that, thanks to rules and regulations built into the law, millions of Americans have already had their existing individual-market insurance cancelled, and estimates say that millions more cancellations are on the way. The end result could be that many people—thousands, perhaps even millions—end up with their current private insurance plans terminated due to the law, but no way to sign up for new coverage....
Sunday, November 17, 2013
British Intelligence Responds To Slashdot About Man-in-Middle Attack
..."The GCHQ agency, Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency, reportedly used fake LinkedIn and Slashdot pages to load malware onto computers at Belgian telecommunications firm Belgacom. In an emailed statement to Slashdot, the GCHQ's Press and Media Affairs Office wrote: 'We have no comment to make on this particular story.' It added: 'All GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensure that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Intelligence and Security Committee.' Meanwhile, LinkedIn's representatives suggested they had no knowledge of the reported hack. 'We have read the same stories, and we want to clarify that we have never cooperated with any government agency,' a spokesperson from the social network wrote in an email to Slashdot, 'nor do we have any knowledge, with regard to these actions, and to date, we have not detected any of the spoofing activity that is being reported.' An IT security expert with extensive knowledge of government intelligence operations, but no direct insight into the GCHQ, hypothesized to Slashdot that carrying out a man-in-the-middle attack was well within the capabilities of British intelligence agencies, but that such a 'retail' operation also seemed somewhat out of character. 'Based on what we know they've done, they are doing industrialized, large scale traffic sweeping and net hacking,' he said. 'They operate a wholesale, with statistical techniques. By "statistical" I mean that they send something that may or may not work.' With that in mind, he added, it's plausible that the GCHQ has software that operates in a similar manner to the NSA's EGOTISTICAL GIRAFFE, and used it to redirect Belgacom employees to a fake download. 'However, the story has been slightly garbaged into it being fake [LinkedIn and Slashdot] accounts, as opposed to network spoofing.'"...
GCHQ Created Spoofed LinkedIn and Slashdot Sites To Serve Malware
...Ars Technica reports how a Snowden leak shows British spy agency GCHQ spoofed LinkedIn and Slashdot so as to serve malware to targeted employees. From the article: 'Der Spiegel suggests that the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British sister agency to the NSA, used spoofed versions of LinkedIn and Slashdot pages to serve malware to targets. This type of attack was also used to target “nine salaried employees” of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the global oil cartel.'...
..."The GCHQ agency, Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency, reportedly used fake LinkedIn and Slashdot pages to load malware onto computers at Belgian telecommunications firm Belgacom. In an emailed statement to Slashdot, the GCHQ's Press and Media Affairs Office wrote: 'We have no comment to make on this particular story.' It added: 'All GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensure that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Intelligence and Security Committee.' Meanwhile, LinkedIn's representatives suggested they had no knowledge of the reported hack. 'We have read the same stories, and we want to clarify that we have never cooperated with any government agency,' a spokesperson from the social network wrote in an email to Slashdot, 'nor do we have any knowledge, with regard to these actions, and to date, we have not detected any of the spoofing activity that is being reported.' An IT security expert with extensive knowledge of government intelligence operations, but no direct insight into the GCHQ, hypothesized to Slashdot that carrying out a man-in-the-middle attack was well within the capabilities of British intelligence agencies, but that such a 'retail' operation also seemed somewhat out of character. 'Based on what we know they've done, they are doing industrialized, large scale traffic sweeping and net hacking,' he said. 'They operate a wholesale, with statistical techniques. By "statistical" I mean that they send something that may or may not work.' With that in mind, he added, it's plausible that the GCHQ has software that operates in a similar manner to the NSA's EGOTISTICAL GIRAFFE, and used it to redirect Belgacom employees to a fake download. 'However, the story has been slightly garbaged into it being fake [LinkedIn and Slashdot] accounts, as opposed to network spoofing.'"...
GCHQ Created Spoofed LinkedIn and Slashdot Sites To Serve Malware
...Ars Technica reports how a Snowden leak shows British spy agency GCHQ spoofed LinkedIn and Slashdot so as to serve malware to targeted employees. From the article: 'Der Spiegel suggests that the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British sister agency to the NSA, used spoofed versions of LinkedIn and Slashdot pages to serve malware to targets. This type of attack was also used to target “nine salaried employees” of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the global oil cartel.'...
Daring to Complain About Obamacare
...The heated reactions even moved offline. Frustrated, I observed to one friend who was covered through her work that when an issue didn’t affect people directly, they became “theoretically generous.” Ask them to donate several thousand dollars so that the less fortunate can have medical insurance — which is exactly what President Obama is asking me to do — and I’ll bet they’d change their tune about “ending inequality” and “creating fairness” and “doing what’s good for the country.” ...
... Like Bridget Jones’s “smug marrieds,” the “smug insureds” — friends who were covered through their own or spouses’ employers or who were grandfathered into their plans — asked why I didn’t “just” switch all of our long-term doctors, suck it up and pay an extra $200 a month for a restrictive network on the exchange, or marry the guy I’m dating. How romantic: “I didn’t marry you just to save money, honey. I married you for your provider network.”
Along with the smug insureds, President Obama doesn’t care much about the relatively small percentage of us with canceled coverage and no viable replacement. He keeps apologizing while maintaining that it’s for the good of the country, a vast improvement “over all.”
And the “over all” might agree. But the self-employed middle class is being sacrificed at the altar of politically correct rhetoric, with nobody helping to ensure our health, fiscal or otherwise, because it’s trendy to cheer for the underdog. Embracing the noble cause is all very well — as long as yours isn’t the “fortunate” family that loses its access to comprehensive, affordable health care while the rest of the nation gets it. ...
...The heated reactions even moved offline. Frustrated, I observed to one friend who was covered through her work that when an issue didn’t affect people directly, they became “theoretically generous.” Ask them to donate several thousand dollars so that the less fortunate can have medical insurance — which is exactly what President Obama is asking me to do — and I’ll bet they’d change their tune about “ending inequality” and “creating fairness” and “doing what’s good for the country.” ...
... Like Bridget Jones’s “smug marrieds,” the “smug insureds” — friends who were covered through their own or spouses’ employers or who were grandfathered into their plans — asked why I didn’t “just” switch all of our long-term doctors, suck it up and pay an extra $200 a month for a restrictive network on the exchange, or marry the guy I’m dating. How romantic: “I didn’t marry you just to save money, honey. I married you for your provider network.”
Along with the smug insureds, President Obama doesn’t care much about the relatively small percentage of us with canceled coverage and no viable replacement. He keeps apologizing while maintaining that it’s for the good of the country, a vast improvement “over all.”
And the “over all” might agree. But the self-employed middle class is being sacrificed at the altar of politically correct rhetoric, with nobody helping to ensure our health, fiscal or otherwise, because it’s trendy to cheer for the underdog. Embracing the noble cause is all very well — as long as yours isn’t the “fortunate” family that loses its access to comprehensive, affordable health care while the rest of the nation gets it. ...
Graham: Selectman could use refresher on Constitution
...Last week, Swampscott Selectman Barry Greenfield proposed the idea of mandatory home inspections for the town’s 600 licensed gun owners. He mentioned the Newtown massacre. He mentioned children’s safety.
There is no record, however, of Selectman Greenfield mentioning the Constitution.
Massachusetts law requires gun owners to store their firearms safely. Greenfield is frustrated with the inability of local cops to push their way into local homes and have a look around without all that “probable cause” and “search warrant” nonsense.
“We need the ability to enforce the state law,” the selectman said, adding that he’s discussed the matter with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan.
If this incredibly bad goose-stepping attack on gun ownership sounds familiar, it should. The state of Washington considered it earlier this year. Then some lawyer heard a rumor about some “Second Amendment thingy” and it went away.
By the way, nobody should be surprised that this attempt to intimidate gun owners is happening in Swampscott, aka “Marblehead Without The Beemers.” It’s a town notorious for treating citizens like servants to be ordered around. Remember the school ordering every parent to attend a program on drug abuse and threatening to punish their kids if they didn’t show up?
Liberals who think “hatin’ on guns” is a guaranteed winner may want to check in with Westford Selectman Robert Jeffries. He proposed requiring gun owners to store them at their gun clubs. He’s now former selectman Jeffries.
But the real question for Massachusetts liberals is this: Why do Swampscotters (Swampscottians?) put up with such heavy-handed treatment from their public “servants?” Are they, as citizens, prepared to put up with government-mandated inspections of their bedrooms and closets?...
...Last week, Swampscott Selectman Barry Greenfield proposed the idea of mandatory home inspections for the town’s 600 licensed gun owners. He mentioned the Newtown massacre. He mentioned children’s safety.
There is no record, however, of Selectman Greenfield mentioning the Constitution.
Massachusetts law requires gun owners to store their firearms safely. Greenfield is frustrated with the inability of local cops to push their way into local homes and have a look around without all that “probable cause” and “search warrant” nonsense.
“We need the ability to enforce the state law,” the selectman said, adding that he’s discussed the matter with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan.
If this incredibly bad goose-stepping attack on gun ownership sounds familiar, it should. The state of Washington considered it earlier this year. Then some lawyer heard a rumor about some “Second Amendment thingy” and it went away.
By the way, nobody should be surprised that this attempt to intimidate gun owners is happening in Swampscott, aka “Marblehead Without The Beemers.” It’s a town notorious for treating citizens like servants to be ordered around. Remember the school ordering every parent to attend a program on drug abuse and threatening to punish their kids if they didn’t show up?
Liberals who think “hatin’ on guns” is a guaranteed winner may want to check in with Westford Selectman Robert Jeffries. He proposed requiring gun owners to store them at their gun clubs. He’s now former selectman Jeffries.
But the real question for Massachusetts liberals is this: Why do Swampscotters (Swampscottians?) put up with such heavy-handed treatment from their public “servants?” Are they, as citizens, prepared to put up with government-mandated inspections of their bedrooms and closets?...
The Secret Obama
...Gay marriage. He didn’t want to keep dissembling about his real position.
“Taken in sum, Obama’s list was a revealing document,” Halperin and Heilemann write. “He believed that over the past three years his progressive impulses had too often been trumped by the demands of pragmatism. That he had trimmed his sails in just the way his critics on the left had charged.”
Some of the aides thought Obama was sketching out a rough second-term agenda, but Chief of Staff Bill Daley had a different thought, according to the authors: “Holy sh**. We have a bunch of leakers here. I hope to God this doesn’t get out.”
As it turned out, it would all be kept under wraps except gay marriage, on which the president was preempted by Vice President Biden, although he had planned to announce the completion of his “evolution” on this issue anyway....
...Gay marriage. He didn’t want to keep dissembling about his real position.
“Taken in sum, Obama’s list was a revealing document,” Halperin and Heilemann write. “He believed that over the past three years his progressive impulses had too often been trumped by the demands of pragmatism. That he had trimmed his sails in just the way his critics on the left had charged.”
Some of the aides thought Obama was sketching out a rough second-term agenda, but Chief of Staff Bill Daley had a different thought, according to the authors: “Holy sh**. We have a bunch of leakers here. I hope to God this doesn’t get out.”
As it turned out, it would all be kept under wraps except gay marriage, on which the president was preempted by Vice President Biden, although he had planned to announce the completion of his “evolution” on this issue anyway....
Obama supporter miffed at botched healthcare rollout
Margaret Davis of West L.A. voted for President Obama and appreciates the ideas behind the Affordable Care Act. She agrees that everyone should have access to healthcare and no one should be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
But here's the problem:
She knows firsthand, as the new law of the land rolls clumsily into being, that it's not working out to everyone's advantage.
"I'm a 55-year-old woman in excellent health and have a catastrophic health plan," she wrote recently to Obama and California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. "I am completely happy with my plan. I received notice that the plan is being canceled and that to stay with a "comparable" plan my premiums would increase 88%, or $200 extra per month. To add insult to injury, the plan is INFERIOR to my existing plan."...
...The most striking change he's seeing, Jakowchik said, is among clients who can get pretty good deals, but only if they give up access to the doctors and hospitals they now use. Because his practice is on the Westside, he's hearing from clients who aren't happy about losing Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and UCLA Medical Center as hospital options...
Margaret Davis of West L.A. voted for President Obama and appreciates the ideas behind the Affordable Care Act. She agrees that everyone should have access to healthcare and no one should be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
But here's the problem:
She knows firsthand, as the new law of the land rolls clumsily into being, that it's not working out to everyone's advantage.
"I'm a 55-year-old woman in excellent health and have a catastrophic health plan," she wrote recently to Obama and California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. "I am completely happy with my plan. I received notice that the plan is being canceled and that to stay with a "comparable" plan my premiums would increase 88%, or $200 extra per month. To add insult to injury, the plan is INFERIOR to my existing plan."...
...The most striking change he's seeing, Jakowchik said, is among clients who can get pretty good deals, but only if they give up access to the doctors and hospitals they now use. Because his practice is on the Westside, he's hearing from clients who aren't happy about losing Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and UCLA Medical Center as hospital options...
NYT: Obama’s lies are merely ‘incorrect promises’
...Incorrect promise.
It was an incorrect promise.
He made a promise, but it turned out to be incorrect.
Hey, it happens to everybody, right? Oh well.
“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” was a lie. Arguably the biggest lie, with the biggest consequences for the biggest number of people, in American history. So of course, Obama’s enablers at the NYT are shielding him from the fallout by… lying....
...Incorrect promise.
It was an incorrect promise.
He made a promise, but it turned out to be incorrect.
Hey, it happens to everybody, right? Oh well.
“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” was a lie. Arguably the biggest lie, with the biggest consequences for the biggest number of people, in American history. So of course, Obama’s enablers at the NYT are shielding him from the fallout by… lying....
Repent for the sin of denying global warming, says theologian
Typhoon Haiyan and even Superstorm Sandy were not simply caused by global warming. They were the result of “moral evil,” according to one theologian.
“These ‘superstorms’ aren’t an ‘act of God,’ but an act of willful disregard for God’s creation, and the neglect of the human responsibility to care for the planet,” writes Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, professor of theology at the Chicago Theological Seminary and a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.
“There is moral evil to be seen in these ‘superstorms,’ I believe, on two levels,” she added. “First, there is the moral evil of continuing to pump fossil fuels into the atmosphere, producing global warming. Second, however, is the moral evil of climate change denial, that is, those who would continue to deny, in the face of mounting evidence, that violent climate change is upon us and it is accelerating.”
Thistlethwaite is writing in the wake of the deadly Typhoon Haiyan which is reportedly responsible for the death of thousands in the Philippines. The storm has already been attributed to global warming by UN officials and has been used as a lightning rod for activism on global warming.
However, Thistlethwaite says there is a “theological prescription” for what humans need to do to stave off planetary destruction — “confession, repentance and change.”...
Typhoon Haiyan and even Superstorm Sandy were not simply caused by global warming. They were the result of “moral evil,” according to one theologian.
“These ‘superstorms’ aren’t an ‘act of God,’ but an act of willful disregard for God’s creation, and the neglect of the human responsibility to care for the planet,” writes Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, professor of theology at the Chicago Theological Seminary and a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.
“There is moral evil to be seen in these ‘superstorms,’ I believe, on two levels,” she added. “First, there is the moral evil of continuing to pump fossil fuels into the atmosphere, producing global warming. Second, however, is the moral evil of climate change denial, that is, those who would continue to deny, in the face of mounting evidence, that violent climate change is upon us and it is accelerating.”
Thistlethwaite is writing in the wake of the deadly Typhoon Haiyan which is reportedly responsible for the death of thousands in the Philippines. The storm has already been attributed to global warming by UN officials and has been used as a lightning rod for activism on global warming.
However, Thistlethwaite says there is a “theological prescription” for what humans need to do to stave off planetary destruction — “confession, repentance and change.”...
Health care: Obama's fix for canceled plans throws insurers a curveball
...One key component of Obamacare, insurers point out, is getting younger and healthier Americans to pay for health insurance. This is necessary to help subsidize the higher costs of other individuals, who will be putting more pressures on a system already exploding in costs.
In the previous system, rates for the young and healthy were generally much lower: Since they generally don’t get sick as much, they were able to pay less, in a setup similar to safe-driver discounts. Indeed, it is many of these Americans who have seen their cheaper health plans canceled and have seen their rates increase.
Now, they can go back to these old plans – assuming states will allow insurers to offer them. But this will undermine the cost structure for those already on new Obamacare plans – those with preexisting conditions, say, who now cannot be denied coverage. These new plans were designed with the assumption that more premiums would be paid by the young and healthy.
“And here we are now, with no effective subsidy for those who cost the system more,” Mr. Mangan says. “I am absolutely terrified that the increases [in claims] that will come for the insurance companies in the next year ... will be monumental.”...
The Lawlessness of the ‘Fix’
...The purpose here is not to prove, yet again, that Obama is a fraud, which would be like proving that Detroit may be a tad mismanaged. The purpose is also not to establish, yet again, Obama’s hypocrisy in condemning Bush’s flouting of a single statute when, once he assumed power, Obama so systematically violated laws that you’d think the oath says, “Take care that the laws be faithlessly executed.” The purpose is not even to reprise Thursday’s remarkable press conference, at which Obama — in the very moment of his humiliation over serial lying — brazenly repeated some of his most notorious and resoundingly disproved whoppers: the claim that his oft-repeated promise about Americans being able to keep their health-insurance plans somehow “ended up being inaccurate” when it was willfully false; the claim that this lie affects only the 5 percent of Americans in the individual market when he has known for years (as John Hinderaker shows) that Obamacare would force the cancellation of tens of millions of employer-provided plans; and so on.
No, the purpose is to highlight how insouciantly lawless and transparently political the president’s latest Obamacare “fix” is. I refer, of course, to Obama’s magnanimous proclamation that he now deigns to permit insurers to issue policies made illegal by the Obamacare statute — at least until the Democrats can get through the 2014 elections. This was frivolous to the point of malfeasance.
Let’s start with the basics. The president has no power to rewrite statutes — he is bereft of dictatorial power to legitimize what Congress has made a violation of law. This reflects our abiding conceit that we have “a government of laws and not of men,” ascribed by John Adams to the 17th-century political theorist James Harrington....
Obamacare's Creative, Or Illegal, Rule-Making
...The administration is already too reliant on creative rule-making to make the law work, such as their decision to delay the employer mandate even though it’s pretty firmly set into law. But now they’re reaching the limits of this strategy. There is always discretion in the implementation of any law, but that discretion is not infinite.
Moreover, this most recent exercise may create other problems. Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law who is involved in one of the lawsuits against Obamacare’s implementation, points out in an e-mail that “the president's action doesn't make these policies legal, it just says the feds won't enforce. State insurance commissioners may approve, but federal law still prohibits these policies.” Which makes me wonder: If those policies end up in court, will a judge go along with their creative approach? And if a judge doesn’t go along with it, what sort of chaos will envelop the insurance market?
That’s leaving aside the civic problems with having an administration that simply waives by fiat any rule that gets in the way of their grand designs. President Obama, who used to be so sharply critical of George W. Bush’s use of executive power, is now pioneering his own expansive views of what the president may do. The White House seems to believe that they are allowed to shinny around any rule, as long as they wrote it. I’d argue that this is exactly backward: They have an especial duty to uphold the laws that they themselves constructed, because if they don’t, why should the rest of us go along?
...One key component of Obamacare, insurers point out, is getting younger and healthier Americans to pay for health insurance. This is necessary to help subsidize the higher costs of other individuals, who will be putting more pressures on a system already exploding in costs.
In the previous system, rates for the young and healthy were generally much lower: Since they generally don’t get sick as much, they were able to pay less, in a setup similar to safe-driver discounts. Indeed, it is many of these Americans who have seen their cheaper health plans canceled and have seen their rates increase.
Now, they can go back to these old plans – assuming states will allow insurers to offer them. But this will undermine the cost structure for those already on new Obamacare plans – those with preexisting conditions, say, who now cannot be denied coverage. These new plans were designed with the assumption that more premiums would be paid by the young and healthy.
“And here we are now, with no effective subsidy for those who cost the system more,” Mr. Mangan says. “I am absolutely terrified that the increases [in claims] that will come for the insurance companies in the next year ... will be monumental.”...
The Lawlessness of the ‘Fix’
...The purpose here is not to prove, yet again, that Obama is a fraud, which would be like proving that Detroit may be a tad mismanaged. The purpose is also not to establish, yet again, Obama’s hypocrisy in condemning Bush’s flouting of a single statute when, once he assumed power, Obama so systematically violated laws that you’d think the oath says, “Take care that the laws be faithlessly executed.” The purpose is not even to reprise Thursday’s remarkable press conference, at which Obama — in the very moment of his humiliation over serial lying — brazenly repeated some of his most notorious and resoundingly disproved whoppers: the claim that his oft-repeated promise about Americans being able to keep their health-insurance plans somehow “ended up being inaccurate” when it was willfully false; the claim that this lie affects only the 5 percent of Americans in the individual market when he has known for years (as John Hinderaker shows) that Obamacare would force the cancellation of tens of millions of employer-provided plans; and so on.
No, the purpose is to highlight how insouciantly lawless and transparently political the president’s latest Obamacare “fix” is. I refer, of course, to Obama’s magnanimous proclamation that he now deigns to permit insurers to issue policies made illegal by the Obamacare statute — at least until the Democrats can get through the 2014 elections. This was frivolous to the point of malfeasance.
Let’s start with the basics. The president has no power to rewrite statutes — he is bereft of dictatorial power to legitimize what Congress has made a violation of law. This reflects our abiding conceit that we have “a government of laws and not of men,” ascribed by John Adams to the 17th-century political theorist James Harrington....
Obamacare's Creative, Or Illegal, Rule-Making
...The administration is already too reliant on creative rule-making to make the law work, such as their decision to delay the employer mandate even though it’s pretty firmly set into law. But now they’re reaching the limits of this strategy. There is always discretion in the implementation of any law, but that discretion is not infinite.
Moreover, this most recent exercise may create other problems. Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law who is involved in one of the lawsuits against Obamacare’s implementation, points out in an e-mail that “the president's action doesn't make these policies legal, it just says the feds won't enforce. State insurance commissioners may approve, but federal law still prohibits these policies.” Which makes me wonder: If those policies end up in court, will a judge go along with their creative approach? And if a judge doesn’t go along with it, what sort of chaos will envelop the insurance market?
That’s leaving aside the civic problems with having an administration that simply waives by fiat any rule that gets in the way of their grand designs. President Obama, who used to be so sharply critical of George W. Bush’s use of executive power, is now pioneering his own expansive views of what the president may do. The White House seems to believe that they are allowed to shinny around any rule, as long as they wrote it. I’d argue that this is exactly backward: They have an especial duty to uphold the laws that they themselves constructed, because if they don’t, why should the rest of us go along?
One fired, three suspended after undercover health care video
The Urban League of Greater Dallas fired one person and suspended three others after a video from a conservative activist reportedly showed the workers encouraging health care applicants to lie.
An edited video was released Monday that seemingly shows so-called health care Navigators encouraging people to lie on forms signing up for health care to get better rates.
The video was released by Project Veritas, which was started by conservative activist James O'Keefe. O'Keefe gained notoriety for videos in 2009 that eventually brought down ACORN. O'Keefe and three others were arrested in 2010 and later pleaded guilty to entering federal property, Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's office, on false pretenses. A 2011 video targeting NPR resulted in the resignation of the organization's CEO.
The Urban League said in a statement on Tuesday it "does not condone, nor would we ever sanction, misleading the public or any individual who seeks our assistance about any issue, and particularly in this case, an issue as critical as health care."...
The Urban League of Greater Dallas fired one person and suspended three others after a video from a conservative activist reportedly showed the workers encouraging health care applicants to lie.
An edited video was released Monday that seemingly shows so-called health care Navigators encouraging people to lie on forms signing up for health care to get better rates.
The video was released by Project Veritas, which was started by conservative activist James O'Keefe. O'Keefe gained notoriety for videos in 2009 that eventually brought down ACORN. O'Keefe and three others were arrested in 2010 and later pleaded guilty to entering federal property, Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's office, on false pretenses. A 2011 video targeting NPR resulted in the resignation of the organization's CEO.
The Urban League said in a statement on Tuesday it "does not condone, nor would we ever sanction, misleading the public or any individual who seeks our assistance about any issue, and particularly in this case, an issue as critical as health care."...
Privacy Pretense
Last month, Silicon Valley purported to be shocked by revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) has routinely accessed the servers of tech giants Google and Yahoo, which store data for hundreds of millions of users. In response, the companies pledged to step up privacy protections.
There is only one problem: Such protections run counter to the business model and public policy agenda that tech companies have pursued for decades. For years, U.S. information technology (IT) firms have actively backed weak privacy rules that let them collect massive amounts of personal data. The strategy enabled the companies to work their way into every corner of consumers’ lives and gave them a competitive edge internationally. Those same policies, however, have come back to haunt IT firms. Lax rules created fertile ground for NSA snooping. In the wake of the surveillance scandals, as consumer confidence plummets, technology companies’ economic futures are threatened....
Last month, Silicon Valley purported to be shocked by revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) has routinely accessed the servers of tech giants Google and Yahoo, which store data for hundreds of millions of users. In response, the companies pledged to step up privacy protections.
There is only one problem: Such protections run counter to the business model and public policy agenda that tech companies have pursued for decades. For years, U.S. information technology (IT) firms have actively backed weak privacy rules that let them collect massive amounts of personal data. The strategy enabled the companies to work their way into every corner of consumers’ lives and gave them a competitive edge internationally. Those same policies, however, have come back to haunt IT firms. Lax rules created fertile ground for NSA snooping. In the wake of the surveillance scandals, as consumer confidence plummets, technology companies’ economic futures are threatened....
Washington State To 8,000 Obamacare Enrollees: We Goofed On Cost Estimate
...About 8,000 Washington residents will soon receive letters informing them that the price they are expecting to pay for health insurance purchased on the new online exchange marketplace is incorrect.
The letters are part of an effort by the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, which operates the exchange, to correct a major error that resulted in the miscalculation of tax credits that help qualified enrollees pay for insurance premiums....
...About 8,000 Washington residents will soon receive letters informing them that the price they are expecting to pay for health insurance purchased on the new online exchange marketplace is incorrect.
The letters are part of an effort by the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, which operates the exchange, to correct a major error that resulted in the miscalculation of tax credits that help qualified enrollees pay for insurance premiums....
D.C. insurance commissioner fired a day after questioning Obamacare fix
A day after he questioned President Obama’s decision to unwind a major tenet of the health-care law and said the nation’s capital might not go along, D.C. insurance commissioner William P. White was fired.
White was called into a meeting Friday afternoon with one of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s (D) top deputies and told that the mayor “wants to go in a different direction,” White told The Washington Post on Saturday....
A day after he questioned President Obama’s decision to unwind a major tenet of the health-care law and said the nation’s capital might not go along, D.C. insurance commissioner William P. White was fired.
White was called into a meeting Friday afternoon with one of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s (D) top deputies and told that the mayor “wants to go in a different direction,” White told The Washington Post on Saturday....
Four years ago, GOP showed exactly what was false about Obama's keep-your-coverage promise
It is now painfully evident to millions of Americans that President Obama's promise that they could keep their current health coverage under Obamacare wasn't true. But what has received less attention in the current uproar is that back in 2009, when Obamacare was under debate and Obama was making the promise, some Republicans saw precisely what was wrong with it, and said so. And when those Republicans challenged the White House, the White House had nothing to say.
Go back to June 23, 2009. The House Education and Labor Committee, chaired by Democratic Rep. George Miller, held a hearing on a draft of Obamacare. Christina Romer, then chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, testified. Among the Republicans who questioned Romer was Rep. Tom Price, who is also a doctor. Price pressed Romer to cite a basis for the president's promise, and in the process predicted much of what would happen more than four years later, in late 2013. Obama's promise fell apart right there in the hearing room. ...
It is now painfully evident to millions of Americans that President Obama's promise that they could keep their current health coverage under Obamacare wasn't true. But what has received less attention in the current uproar is that back in 2009, when Obamacare was under debate and Obama was making the promise, some Republicans saw precisely what was wrong with it, and said so. And when those Republicans challenged the White House, the White House had nothing to say.
Go back to June 23, 2009. The House Education and Labor Committee, chaired by Democratic Rep. George Miller, held a hearing on a draft of Obamacare. Christina Romer, then chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, testified. Among the Republicans who questioned Romer was Rep. Tom Price, who is also a doctor. Price pressed Romer to cite a basis for the president's promise, and in the process predicted much of what would happen more than four years later, in late 2013. Obama's promise fell apart right there in the hearing room. ...
Americans’ personal data shared with CIA, IRS, others in security probe
WASHINGTON — U.S. agencies collected and shared the personal information of thousands of Americans in an attempt to root out untrustworthy federal workers that ended up scrutinizing people who had no direct ties to the U.S. government and simply had purchased certain books.
Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests. The officials then distributed a list of 4,904 people – along with many of their Social Security numbers, addresses and professions – to nearly 30 federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.
Although the polygraph-beating techniques are unproven, authorities hoped to find government employees or applicants who might have tried to use them to lie during the tests required for security clearances. Officials with multiple agencies confirmed that they’d checked the names in their databases and planned to retain the list in case any of those named take polygraphs for federal jobs or criminal investigations.
It turned out, however, that many people on the list worked outside the federal government and lived across the country. Among the people whose personal details were collected were nurses, firefighters, police officers and private attorneys, McClatchy learned. Also included: a psychologist, a cancer researcher and employees of Rite Aid, Paramount Pictures, the American Red Cross and Georgetown University. ...
WASHINGTON — U.S. agencies collected and shared the personal information of thousands of Americans in an attempt to root out untrustworthy federal workers that ended up scrutinizing people who had no direct ties to the U.S. government and simply had purchased certain books.
Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests. The officials then distributed a list of 4,904 people – along with many of their Social Security numbers, addresses and professions – to nearly 30 federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.
Although the polygraph-beating techniques are unproven, authorities hoped to find government employees or applicants who might have tried to use them to lie during the tests required for security clearances. Officials with multiple agencies confirmed that they’d checked the names in their databases and planned to retain the list in case any of those named take polygraphs for federal jobs or criminal investigations.
It turned out, however, that many people on the list worked outside the federal government and lived across the country. Among the people whose personal details were collected were nurses, firefighters, police officers and private attorneys, McClatchy learned. Also included: a psychologist, a cancer researcher and employees of Rite Aid, Paramount Pictures, the American Red Cross and Georgetown University. ...
Kristen Powers: I'm Fuming That the Administration Keeps Claiming My Policy Was Canceled Becasue It Was "Substandard;" It Wasn't. It Was Canceled to Force Me to Subsidize Other People.
@johnekdahl noted that Powers was "destroying" Obama on the cancellations on Bret Baier's show.
Indeed, she was. There are three elements that made her criticism powerful:
1. This isn't hypothetical. She's an actual victim. She's not talking about other people losing her coverage, but herself. Furthermore, as she knows her own now-canceled policy, she can tick off what it covered -- which was everything on Obama's list -- and state, authoritatively, that the new policies offered to her offer nothing new... except double the premium.
2. Unlike most partisan Democrats in the media, she did not resort to euphemism. She laid it out: Her policy is only more expensive now because of the forced subsidy to other people.
3. She's a Democrat -- not one of those Republicans who, we know, always lie about everything, or are stupid, and so lie inadvertently, because their brains are so stunted and lizard-like....
...We must not rest until Obama and his Palace Guard Media have been compelled to confess the central truth of Obamacare: It was always going to cost you a lot more. That was the whole point. This is not an accident; this is not "poor implementation of the law." ...
@johnekdahl noted that Powers was "destroying" Obama on the cancellations on Bret Baier's show.
Indeed, she was. There are three elements that made her criticism powerful:
1. This isn't hypothetical. She's an actual victim. She's not talking about other people losing her coverage, but herself. Furthermore, as she knows her own now-canceled policy, she can tick off what it covered -- which was everything on Obama's list -- and state, authoritatively, that the new policies offered to her offer nothing new... except double the premium.
2. Unlike most partisan Democrats in the media, she did not resort to euphemism. She laid it out: Her policy is only more expensive now because of the forced subsidy to other people.
3. She's a Democrat -- not one of those Republicans who, we know, always lie about everything, or are stupid, and so lie inadvertently, because their brains are so stunted and lizard-like....
...We must not rest until Obama and his Palace Guard Media have been compelled to confess the central truth of Obamacare: It was always going to cost you a lot more. That was the whole point. This is not an accident; this is not "poor implementation of the law." ...
Behind Obama’s lie, our own immaturity
We can't handle the truth
...Beyond that, reforming such a huge chunk of the U.S. economy necessarily leads to often unanticipated changes for millions of Americans.
Acknowledging that reality would have been the honest thing to do. So would asking healthier and wealthier Americans to sacrifice for the greater good of ensuring every American have health-care coverage....
...Voters want progress without sacrifice or inconvenience. Seemingly the only path to change is telling voters what they want to hear.
So accuse Obama of lying about health-care reform — but understand the simple underlying reality: we can’t handle the truth.
We can't handle the truth
...Beyond that, reforming such a huge chunk of the U.S. economy necessarily leads to often unanticipated changes for millions of Americans.
Acknowledging that reality would have been the honest thing to do. So would asking healthier and wealthier Americans to sacrifice for the greater good of ensuring every American have health-care coverage....
...Voters want progress without sacrifice or inconvenience. Seemingly the only path to change is telling voters what they want to hear.
So accuse Obama of lying about health-care reform — but understand the simple underlying reality: we can’t handle the truth.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Rubio to introduce bill that would repeal “risk corridor” — a.k.a. bailout — provisions of ObamaCare
...Via the Weekly Standard, here’s David Cutler, one of the architects of O-Care, admitting last night that an insurance industry death spiral isn’t out of the question here. In fact, though, the “risk corridor” is designed to reduce the risk of a death spiral; so are the taxpayer subsidies for lower-income enrollees on the exchanges, which can (at least theoretically) be increased to keep pace with premiums if/when they start to rise. Without the risk corridor and the subsidies, the only way for insurers to make back their losses this year is to jack up premiums next year, which will further discourage healthy people from enrolling, which in turn will make the exchange risk pools even sicker and more costly, and thus the death spiral is set in motion. Thanks to Uncle Sam’s “generosity,” they might not have to do that. But all of this points to the same basic fact: The more adverse selection there is on the new exchanges, the more unanticipated costs there’ll be. Those costs will be borne either by the insurance industry, if Rubio’s bill prevails and the “risk corridor” provision is eliminated, or mostly by the federal government, in the form of a bailout and higher subsidies. The political challenge of Rubio’s bill for Democrats is that they don’t want to be on the wrong side of yet another TARP-like government giveaway to an unpopular industry, but on the other hand they can’t take away insurers’ “risk corridor” safety net or else the industry might turn on ObamaCare and then the whole thing will implode. Dilemmas, dilemmas....
...Via the Weekly Standard, here’s David Cutler, one of the architects of O-Care, admitting last night that an insurance industry death spiral isn’t out of the question here. In fact, though, the “risk corridor” is designed to reduce the risk of a death spiral; so are the taxpayer subsidies for lower-income enrollees on the exchanges, which can (at least theoretically) be increased to keep pace with premiums if/when they start to rise. Without the risk corridor and the subsidies, the only way for insurers to make back their losses this year is to jack up premiums next year, which will further discourage healthy people from enrolling, which in turn will make the exchange risk pools even sicker and more costly, and thus the death spiral is set in motion. Thanks to Uncle Sam’s “generosity,” they might not have to do that. But all of this points to the same basic fact: The more adverse selection there is on the new exchanges, the more unanticipated costs there’ll be. Those costs will be borne either by the insurance industry, if Rubio’s bill prevails and the “risk corridor” provision is eliminated, or mostly by the federal government, in the form of a bailout and higher subsidies. The political challenge of Rubio’s bill for Democrats is that they don’t want to be on the wrong side of yet another TARP-like government giveaway to an unpopular industry, but on the other hand they can’t take away insurers’ “risk corridor” safety net or else the industry might turn on ObamaCare and then the whole thing will implode. Dilemmas, dilemmas....
More People Signed Petition to Build Death Star than Signed Up for Health Care via Nat’l Website
A petition to build a Death Star from the Star Wars universe received more support than people who were able to sign up for health insurance via healthcare.gov in October.
The petition, which received 34,435 signatures, demolished health care in signups, which was starkly lower at a mere 26,794. That’s a difference of 7,641....
Congressman: 185 times more health plans canceled than selected on federal exchange
...In a Friday memo, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp emphasized that the number of people who have had their individual health insurance plans canceled due to Obamacare is 185 times the number of people who have selected an insurance plan on the federal Obamacare exchange....
A petition to build a Death Star from the Star Wars universe received more support than people who were able to sign up for health insurance via healthcare.gov in October.
The petition, which received 34,435 signatures, demolished health care in signups, which was starkly lower at a mere 26,794. That’s a difference of 7,641....
Congressman: 185 times more health plans canceled than selected on federal exchange
...In a Friday memo, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp emphasized that the number of people who have had their individual health insurance plans canceled due to Obamacare is 185 times the number of people who have selected an insurance plan on the federal Obamacare exchange....
UnitedHealth drops thousands of doctors from insurance plans: WSJ
UnitedHealth Group dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in recent weeks, leaving many elderly patients unsure whether they need to switch plans to continue seeing their doctors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
The insurer said in October that underfunding of Medicare Advantage plans for the elderly could not be fully offset by the company's other healthcare business. The company also reported spending more healthcare premiums on medical claims in the third quarter, due mainly to government cuts to payments for Medicare Advantage services.
The Journal report said that doctors in at least 10 states were notified of being laid off the plans, some citing "significant changes and pressures in the healthcare environment." According to the notices, the terminations can be appealed within 30 days.
Tyler Mason, a UnitedHealth spokesperson, was not immediately available for comment when reached by Reuters.
The insurer told the WSJ that its provider networks were always changing and that it expected its Medicare Advantage network to be 85 percent to 90 percent of its current size by the end of 2014.
UnitedHealth is participating in about a dozen new state insurance markets that launched on October 1 to offer subsidized health coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul....
UnitedHealth Group dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in recent weeks, leaving many elderly patients unsure whether they need to switch plans to continue seeing their doctors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
The insurer said in October that underfunding of Medicare Advantage plans for the elderly could not be fully offset by the company's other healthcare business. The company also reported spending more healthcare premiums on medical claims in the third quarter, due mainly to government cuts to payments for Medicare Advantage services.
The Journal report said that doctors in at least 10 states were notified of being laid off the plans, some citing "significant changes and pressures in the healthcare environment." According to the notices, the terminations can be appealed within 30 days.
Tyler Mason, a UnitedHealth spokesperson, was not immediately available for comment when reached by Reuters.
The insurer told the WSJ that its provider networks were always changing and that it expected its Medicare Advantage network to be 85 percent to 90 percent of its current size by the end of 2014.
UnitedHealth is participating in about a dozen new state insurance markets that launched on October 1 to offer subsidized health coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)