It Will Be Later

[MSimon]

Mrs. Sebelius is also pressuring private companies working on the website, including CGI Group Inc., she said. "I called on the contractor to get its A-team here and give us 150%," Mrs. Sebelius said. CGI declined to comment, a spokesman said.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1314028434

What happens when you add people to a late project? It gets later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law

If they put in enough effort it will never get done.

[JLawson]

Mrs. Sebelius is also pressuring private companies working on the website, including CGI Group Inc., she said. "I called on the contractor to get its A-team here and give us 150%," Mrs. Sebelius said. CGI declined to comment, a spokesman said.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1314028434

What happens when you add people to a late project? It gets later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law

If they put in enough effort it will never get done.

And this would be bad because....?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mil ... 64602.html

Obamacare was supposed to take care of the approximately 10-20 mil (depending on who was talking about it at the time it went all the way down to 5 million, or up to 30 million) without insurance.

It's hard to believe there wasn't a simpler, less expensive way to do it. Attach a health-care benefit to unemployment and WIC/food stamp registration. Have a $2k/yr prescription allowance, $5k doctor visit allowance. If more funds are needed, they're added - if not, they roll over.

But it wouldn't have been a big signature accomplishment with Obama's name on it. And they wouldn't have able to have a nice little victory parade.



I give it about three more weeks, and Pelosi's going to run hard and fast from this mess.

[hanelyp]

I give it about three more weeks, and Pelosi's going to run hard and fast from this mess.

With statements like "We have to pass it to find what's in it", there's nowhere she can run or hide to get away from it. She's shackled herself to this bomb.

But if she tries, that would be something to be thankful for.

[MSimon]

I give it about three more weeks, and Pelosi's going to run hard and fast from this mess.

With statements like "We have to pass it to find what's in it", there's nowhere she can run or hide to get away from it. She's shackled herself to this bomb.

But if she tries, that would be something to be thankful for.

Amusing to watch in any case.

[Schneibster]

No more "pre-existing condition" ripoffs.
No more "lifetime maximum" ripoffs.
No more getting ripped off for preventive care.

Those three alone make it worthwhile.

[JLawson]

Arrival of Obamacare forcing insurers to drop customers with low coverage

Her insurer, Kaiser Permanente, is terminating policies for 160,000 people in California and presenting them with new plans that comply with the healthcare law.

"Before I had a plan that I had a $1,500 deductible," she said. "I paid $199 dollars a month. The most similar plan that I would have available to me would be $278 a month. My deductible would be $6,500 dollars, and all of my care after that point would only be covered 70 percent."

Gerry Kominski, director of public health policy at UCLA said: "About half of the 14 million people who buy insurance on their own are not going to be able to keep the policies that they had previously."

He says higher premiums help insurers pay for new requirements including accepting patients with pre-existing conditions and providing preventative care like check-ups and vaccines.

"You're paying more for a better product and for more protection -- and you won't understand the value of that until you need it," he said.

But many can't get past the sticker shock.

"Now I'm being forced to choose from a bunch of new plans that I don't want to choose from that are all more expensive," Willes said.

This from that right-wing shill site CBSNEWS.COM.

And from the comments -

"Kominski is a liar or should resign his tenure at UCLA. My health insurance is cancelled and I must get new program. I'm 59 with spouse. I currently have a $5000 deductible plan with $8500 out-of-pocket maximum (inclusive of deductible). The current plan I pay $410 per month. I must get a new program from Anthem Blue Cross which is a $6200 deductible and $6350 out-of-pocket. Cost $796 per month. I went to the Covered CA exchange and the least expensive program is a $6200 deductible, $6350 out-of-pocket. Cost is $976 per month. So, according to this imbecile, I should be happy to pay an extra $4k per year to lower my out-of-pocket by $2150, because I'll have a better plan. BS. Well, I know math and finance. And I am not happy. Also, the increase in deductible from $5000 to $6250 means that I must incur $1250 extra each year before the plan pays anything. This asinine sock puppet should resign his position at UCLA. He knows nothing."

Yeah, Schneibs - it's really great. People are loving it. They can't wait to get on it. Why, I heard in North Dakota BCBS has signed up 20 people so far this month. Might even be up to 30 by now, but they're not supposed to tell people how many have signed on. Must be pretty bad when someone selling a product doesn't want their vendors to tell how many units were sold, wouldn't you think? If they were proud of the numbers, they'd be touting them.

Funny thing, too - even before Obamacare, there were health-care aggregator sites that actually worked - like EHealthinsurance.Com. And you didn't have to put your SSAN in to get a quote, it worked quickly, and the info was accurate for the plans.

Too bad Obamacare couldn't just point people to that, and offer a tax rebate for folks below a certain income... or even a subsidy, with proof of insurance.

[Schneibster]

We tried for the public option.

Y'all were against it.

Enjoy.

[Jccarlton]

An expert's take:
http://andstillipersist.com/2013/10/oba ... t-of-doom/
My guess Is that ego and their personalities will keep Team Obama from realizing the obvious until the final collapse. I don't think that the Republican s were actually doing Obama a favor by wanting to defund Obamacare for a year. I don't think Obama realized it either. He and Jarrett were so concentrated on beating the Republicans with the shutdown that this train wreck snuck up behind them and derailed all over their laps. I wonder when Boehner found out? Caving when he did got the shutdown off the news monitors at just the right time.

[JLawson]

An expert's take:
http://andstillipersist.com/2013/10/oba ... t-of-doom/
My guess Is that ego and their personalities will keep Team Obama from realizing the obvious until the final collapse. I don't think that the Republican s were actually doing Obama a favor by wanting to defund Obamacare for a year. I don't think Obama realized it either. He and Jarrett were so concentrated on beating the Republicans with the shutdown that this train wreck snuck up behind them and derailed all over their laps. I wonder when Boehner found out? Caving when he did got the shutdown off the news monitors at just the right time.

Let's run down the specs as listed in your link -

In that white paper, I talked about the various software quality aspects that were important in a successful system. Here they are:

Reliability: the system must carry out its functions without causing unacceptable errors or having an unacceptable downtime.

Fail.

Performance: the system must complete its various operations within time spans acceptable to the client.

Fail.

Functionality: the system must offer sufficient usable features to meet the client’s needs.

Usability? I think not.

Compatibility: the system must interact effectively with existing IT systems, including appropriate external systems under the control of other entities.

I'll be generous and give it 50% on that, due to lack of any better evidence of functionality.

Lifespan: the system must continue to offer acceptable reliability, performance, and functionality over a sufficient period of time to warrant the cost to the client, including in many cases having the ability to grow with the client.

Well, hard to judge that -since it hasn't really come live yet.

Deployment: the vendor must deliver and deploy the system, and the client receive its benefits (reliability, performance, and functionality), in a timeframe acceptable to the client.

Total unequivocal fail. It's late out the gate, and there's no apparent benefit.

Support: the system must have the capability to be upgraded and repaired over time.

Unknown - but there'd better be a way to upgrade it because ver 1.0 ain't cutting it.

Cost: the cumulative expense of developing, deploying, upgrading, and maintaining the system must appear to be justified in the eyes of the client.

Now, this depends on who you see as the 'client'. If it's 'we the people', then it's vastly overpriced. If it's the government - they apparently saw sufficient utility to throw a whole lot of money at it.

As far as it all goes - there's going to be a lot of fingerpointing and shouting - but if this is fixed in six months I'm going to be very surprised.

[JLawson]

We tried for the public option.

Y'all were against it.

Enjoy.

And there you see the 'progressive' revealed, in all its mean, vindictive glory.

"You didn't give me what I wanted, so I'm glad you'll be paying a lot more for a lot less."

Thanks for being so up-front. It really clarifies things.


Now, as far as 'public option' goes - the devil is in the details. It's easy to support a plan you know little to nothing about, especially if it promises lower prices and better coverage. Who doesn't like getting things for free, or cheap?

(Assuming those things are, indeed, something you want or can use. If Obamacare were to mandate a quarterly colonoscopy for everyone over the age of 25, you might get some people who'd love it, but I think most would rather pass on that particular 'benefit'.)

But promises are easy things to make - politicians know this, and know that the better the promises the more support they'll get.

It's when they try to deliver that you've got to start worrying - and sometimes you just can't deliver.

With Obamacare, you've got a double-fail. Wonderful promises, but they're not delivering on what was promised, and it's hard to even get to a point where you see the fail.

And somehow you'd think they'd have gotten public option right?

[Jccarlton]

We tried for the public option.

Y'all were against it.

Enjoy.

And there you see the 'progressive' revealed, in all its mean, vindictive glory.

"You didn't give me what I wanted, so I'm glad you'll be paying a lot more for a lot less."

Thanks for being so up-front. It really clarifies things.


Now, as far as 'public option' goes - the devil is in the details. It's easy to support a plan you know little to nothing about, especially if it promises lower prices and better coverage. Who doesn't like getting things for free, or cheap?

(Assuming those things are, indeed, something you want or can use. If Obamacare were to mandate a quarterly colonoscopy for everyone over the age of 25, you might get some people who'd love it, but I think most would rather pass on that particular 'benefit'.)

But promises are easy things to make - politicians know this, and know that the better the promises the more support they'll get.

It's when they try to deliver that you've got to start worrying - and sometimes you just can't deliver.

With Obamacare, you've got a double-fail. Wonderful promises, but they're not delivering on what was promised, and it's hard to even get to a point where you see the fail.

And somehow you'd think they'd have gotten public option right?

I think this debacle may have just killed the public option permanently. The exchanges are going down, doctors are fleeing if they can, they've managed to show 20 to 30 million odd people that government health does indeed work about as well as the DMV and the Dems think that there will be massive support for single payer when this is over?

[Jccarlton]

We tried for the public option.

Y'all were against it.

Enjoy.

And there you see the 'progressive' revealed, in all its mean, vindictive glory.

"You didn't give me what I wanted, so I'm glad you'll be paying a lot more for a lot less."

Thanks for being so up-front. It really clarifies things.


Now, as far as 'public option' goes - the devil is in the details. It's easy to support a plan you know little to nothing about, especially if it promises lower prices and better coverage. Who doesn't like getting things for free, or cheap?

(Assuming those things are, indeed, something you want or can use. If Obamacare were to mandate a quarterly colonoscopy for everyone over the age of 25, you might get some people who'd love it, but I think most would rather pass on that particular 'benefit'.)

But promises are easy things to make - politicians know this, and know that the better the promises the more support they'll get.

It's when they try to deliver that you've got to start worrying - and sometimes you just can't deliver.

With Obamacare, you've got a double-fail. Wonderful promises, but they're not delivering on what was promised, and it's hard to even get to a point where you see the fail.

And somehow you'd think they'd have gotten public option right?

Isn't it odd that our commenter, a putative software engineer, goes for the cheap shot rather than actually contributing something to the conversation with his expertise?

[JLawson]

We tried for the public option.

Y'all were against it.

Enjoy.

And there you see the 'progressive' revealed, in all its mean, vindictive glory.

"You didn't give me what I wanted, so I'm glad you'll be paying a lot more for a lot less."

Thanks for being so up-front. It really clarifies things.


Now, as far as 'public option' goes - the devil is in the details. It's easy to support a plan you know little to nothing about, especially if it promises lower prices and better coverage. Who doesn't like getting things for free, or cheap?

(Assuming those things are, indeed, something you want or can use. If Obamacare were to mandate a quarterly colonoscopy for everyone over the age of 25, you might get some people who'd love it, but I think most would rather pass on that particular 'benefit'.)

But promises are easy things to make - politicians know this, and know that the better the promises the more support they'll get.

It's when they try to deliver that you've got to start worrying - and sometimes you just can't deliver.

With Obamacare, you've got a double-fail. Wonderful promises, but they're not delivering on what was promised, and it's hard to even get to a point where you see the fail.

And somehow you'd think they'd have gotten public option right?

Isn't it odd that our commenter, a putative software engineer, goes for the cheap shot rather than actually contributing something to the conversation with his expertise?

Anyone can claim to be anything - but then, I'm just an Irish Setter with a custom keyboard, myself...

And it's not odd. If you're out of facts in an argument, you have to go for either silence, cheap shots or just start accusing everyone you're arguing with of lying. Or racism - THAT one never gets old, and you can immediately abandon the argument with a 'win'.

[hanelyp]

Isn't it odd that our commenter, a putative software engineer ...

As someone inside the software engineering field, I've observed that the natural inclination of most in the field is libertarian. But so many with that inclination are so politically clueless that they fall hook, line, and sinker for the false "libertarian left" line or otherwise believe that democrats serve their interests.

(libertarian != libertine)

Then you get the egomaniacs who think they know better than you how to run your life. I've got better things to do with my life than try to run yours, even if I am smarter than you.

[Jccarlton]

Yet another piercing analysis from a pro:
http://ai.mee.nu/black_swans_dead_parrots