(Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

[lektrode]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Woodward: ObamaCare Isn’t Watergate or Lewinsky, ‘But It’s Going to Get Worse’
....

here’s the other side of this which I would agree with George Will on.

When you go down the road, it's going to get worse, because you talk to the experts and they will tell you that this is a money issue.

It’s going to blow a hole in the budget.

And when we go in two or three months from now and have more “Are we going to shut down the government? Are we going to pay for the debt we have?” All of a sudden, this is going to come on the table and people are going to say, "My God, it's going to cost much more money than we were spending on these things before."

So how you disentangle this is now on Obama’s head. Now, can he learn? This is an executive function, which is something he’s not starred in so far in his presidency. And, can he get it together? You know everyone says and knows he is bright, and

can he learn to manage?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz2kwwY4nYF

wonder if the bookies in los wages have a line on this yet...

[vt]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

March 21st 2010 to October 1 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days.

December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day.

What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this federal government to build a working webpage.

Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin - all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!!

And they can't build a webpage. ........ think about that .............. No, really . . . think about that.

Do we have an incompetent government employing and run by idiots.........or what?????

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...d81_story.html


Of course the Republicans are not home free and have their own problems, which is why we need the New Majority Party

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...047#post269047

We need the fine minds here to help bring this about Not just to transition from FIRE to TECI but for an acceptable compromise for all Americans.

[jiimbergin]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

March 21st 2010 to October 1 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days.

December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day.

What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this federal government to build a working webpage.

Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin - all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!!

And they can't build a webpage. ........ think about that .............. No, really . . . think about that.

Do we have an incompetent government employing and run by idiots.........or what?????

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...d81_story.html


Of course the Republicans are not home free and have their own problems, which is why we need the New Majority Party

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...047#post269047

We need the fine minds here to help bring this about Not just to transition from FIRE to TECI but for an acceptable compromise for all Americans.

VT, would you mind if I quote some of this in emails or even facebook? This idea is brilliant!

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

March 21st 2010 to October 1 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days.

December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day.

What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this federal government to build a working webpage.

Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin - all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!!

And they can't build a webpage. ........ think about that .............. No, really . . . think about that.

Do we have an incompetent government employing and run by idiots.........or what?????

This is an important point, VT. Any party that can address this in a convincing way has an advantage over the existing duopoly as they are totally compromised in this arena.

But is it really a result of incompetence and cognitive deficiencies on the part of federal employees, or is it something else?

What is different now than in the 40s with regard to how government performs its tasks? Prior to the 40s, the government took on far more tasks than it outsourced and seemed to have performed adequately enough. With the war came a surge in government contracting, but it seems that the program management approach was far more hands on. Surely the threat of penalties for nonperformance seems to have been taken far more seriously on the part of the state and the contractors then compared to now. That's not the only difference, but let's focus on it for the present.

It's an anecdote, but we've all seen the old newsreels of plant workers racing to meet production quotas and so obsessively committed to quality that they left their signatures on the planes, tanks and ships, etc they built. Knowing that their sons and husbands lives were hanging in the balance surely motivated workers to produce with quality. Has that changed, too? Are workers less productive and quality oriented now, or is something else at play here?

So what is different? Could it be that the changes in Federal Acquisition Regulations since WWII have had a negative impact on the management and performace of contracts? Could it be that the economic power of contractors, they're lobbying, and their ability to expertly game the system has some greater impact? Or, is it really that government is run by incompetent morons?

Cost-plus contracting was initially intended to support research and development tasks and so account for the low-profit margin/high costs associated with that sort of work. Now most contracts are cost plus even when a project is years beyond the R&D stage.

Does the widespread use of cost plus and incentive fee contracts versus the traditional fixed cost approach have any impact, or is it because people are just generally more dumb than they were 60 years ago?

Does the "revolving door" between federal workers and contractors impact performance in any way, or is it just dumb feds becoming dumb contractors?

Does the "recycling" of contract dollars to legislators in the form of campaign contributions have an impact, or is really just a matter of switching out the dummies for the smarts?

When was the last time a major defense contractor, for example, was fired for lack of performance? When was the last time a major project came in on time and on budget, for that matter? When was the last time you heard of a major contractor being held to account for failure by being barred from bidding or fined in such a way as to really drive the point home. Raytheon, Lockheed and other similar big guys have out right been caught stealing and bribing, but other than prosecuting low level staff, no one has been outright barred from bidding.

Is it really just a bunch of imbiciles in government or just another situation involving a captured regulator with no incentive to rock the boat. Is it simply that the government is just too stupid to do the job, or does the fact that highly capitalized contractors spread around largess have some greater impact?

Look at CGI, the prime for Obamacare. It has a documented history of poor performance and cost overruns on many large projects, some of which they even used as evidence for "success" in their bid for Obamacare. And while they may not be all that great at building complex medical web sites, they are really good at lobbying and managing their managers. "The ultimate aim is to establish relations so intimate with the client that decoupling becomes almost impossible".

There is a mountain's worth of problems with federal acquisitions and solving them has to be somewhere on the platform for a new majority, but "an incompetent government employing and run by idiots" seems to me a convenient limited hangout that also serves to misdirect us from the true source of the problem - capture of the government. The state is now run for the benefit of a small coterie of financial elites, so from their perspective, cost overruns and missed deadlines are evidence of great performance.

Have you noticed that the market has brushed off CGI's mishandling of Obamacare? The company's stock price has been on a run up ever since the Obamacare rollout.

(NASDAQ)

Now why is that? I thought the free market was supposed to be the largest repository of smart? But here it is giving CGI and its executive leadership an attaboy for its supposed failure and incompetence. Is the market stupid, too?

[vt]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Woodsman,

I agree. CGI is just the type of private contracter that is the problem. And why were they chosen?

Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is executive at company that built Obamacare website

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/mi...#ixzz2l2DpWWrk

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website.
Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.
Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.
Toni Townes ’85 is a onetime policy analyst with the General Accounting Office and previously served in the Peace Corps in Gabon, West Africa. Her decision to return to work, as an African-American woman, after six years of raising kids was applauded by a Princeton alumni publication in 1998
George Schindler, the president for U.S. and Canada of the Canadian-based CGI Group, CGI Federal’s parent company, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract.
As reported by the Washington Examiner in early October, the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed only CGI’s bid for the Obamacare account. CGI was one of 16 companies qualified under the Bush administration to provide certain tech services to the federal government. A senior vice president for the company testified this week before The House Committee on Energy and Commerce that four companies submitted bids, but did not name those companies or explain why only CGI’s bid was considered.
On the government end, construction of the disastrous Healthcare.gov website was overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division of longtime failed website-builder Kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human Services.
Update: The Daily Caller repeatedly contacted CGI Federal for comment. After publication of this article, the company responded that there would be “nothing coming out of CGI for the record or otherwise today.” The company did however insist that The Daily Caller include a reference to vice president Cheryl Campbell’s House testimony. This has been included as a courtesy to the company.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/mi...#ixzz2l2Ede7td


Let's end the party for both of these political entities, and get rid of crony capitalism and crony socialism.

As EJ just quoted Mayo:

"I then took this nugget over to Mayo and asked her what she thought.

"What's the difference between Objective Journalism as practiced by the NYT and and New Journalism that Hunter Thomson does?" I asked.
She replied, "With New Journalism you piece together lies to construct truths and with Objective Journalism you piece together truths to construct lies."

What we both have grown up reading in the press has mostly been lies

[Mn_Mark]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

But is it really a result of incompetence and cognitive deficiencies on the part of federal employees, or is it something else?

It's not that government employees are stupid. It's not that at all. That is a straw man argument.

It's that the incentives are wrong with government. Government people are spending other people's money. When you spend other people's money the incentive to find efficient, high-quality solutions is not there in the way that it is when it is your own money you spend.

If a private enterprise finds a way to provide a service at less input cost, that means more profit for the private enterprise.

If a government agency finds a way to provide a service at less input cost, that means a smaller budget next year for the agency, which means less power and less money for the people running the agency. Human nature being what it is, people want more power and more money - which means the incentive is for government agencies to never, ever solve the problems they were founded to solve - that would put them out of work - and to always require more money, every year.

See? It's not stupidity , it's incentives.

And I know that the Al Gore/smart government/reinventing government-type-liberals have fantasized forever that they're going to find a way to get those incentives right, but they never will. Because they are spending other people's money, and you never take as much care when you spend other people's money. Never have, never will.

That's why the private sector is always the more efficient way for society to provide goods and services, and that is why health care under government control will more and more resemble the defense department and the public schools and less and less resemble Silicon Valley.

[vt]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Jim

There have already been a number of good ideas in the NMP thread, which I started. Shiny had a good list, Lextrode had a couple, Woodsman has posted.
The first quote comparing WW2 and the Obamacare development came from an email with an unknown author.

My contribution is the NMP thread and the other threads I authored. Feel free to quote me in those.

We're all trying to make a better, fairer world.

[jiimbergin]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

VT, thanks!

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

I agree...Let's end the party for both of these political entities, and get rid of crony capitalism and crony socialism.

NMP! Yeah, baby!

[flintlock]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

We can paint it anyway we want to, its still just incompetence mixed with corruption. These contracts always go to the politically connected, not the most competent to do the job. The profit motive has to be taken out of our political system, its as simple as that.

[jiimbergin]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

We can paint it anyway we want to, its still just incompetence mixed with corruption. These contracts always go to the politically connected, not the most competent to do the job. The profit motive has to be taken out of our political system, its as simple as that.

I could not agree more!

[vinoveri]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

We can paint it anyway we want to, its still just incompetence mixed with corruption. These contracts always go to the politically connected, not the most competent to do the job. The profit motive has to be taken out of our political system, its as simple as that.

Apart from changing human nature or reforming our economic system to be not based on greed, the most straightforward solution is to: LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO SPEND MONEY, but sadly this ain't gonna happen

[lektrode]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Apart from changing human nature or reforming our economic system to be not based on greed, the most straightforward solution is to: LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO SPEND MONEY, but sadly this ain't gonna happen

well... its not like the ancients didnt warn us - and its not like there arent any modern examples of WHY that should be so -
but when we have a congress that for (at least) the past 1/2dozen years FLATLY REFUSES TO EVEN COME UP WITH A BUDGET - since the party in power thot the sequester was a negotiating tool, and cried DISASTER when it forced them to cut (the rate of growth in) spending by EVEN 3% ???

and then proceeded to cut mostly whats most visible = classic strategy of dem politix at its typical worst.

and THEN we have the daily revelations on stuff like this particular triangulation:

ObamaCare's Union Favor

The White House may let Big Labor dodge a reinsurance tax.


Nov. 17, 2013 6:04 p.m. ET
The Affordable Care Act's greatest hits keep coming, and one that hasn't received enough attention is a looming favor for President Obama's friends in Big Labor. Millions of Americans are losing their plans and paying more for health care, and doctors are being forced out of insurance networks, but a lucky few may soon get relief.
Earlier this month the Administration suggested that it may grant a waiver for some insurance plans from a tax that is supposed to capitalize a reinsurance fund for ObamaCare. The $25 billion cost of the fund, which is designed to pay out to the insurers on the exchanges if their costs are higher than expected, is socialized over every U.S. citizen with a private health plan. For 2014, the fee per head is $63.


The unions hate this reinsurance transfer because it takes from their members in the form of higher premiums and gives to people on the exchanges. But then most consumers are hurt in the same way, and the unions have little ground for complaint given that ObamaCare would not have passed in 2010 without the fervent support of the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters and the rest.
The unions ought to consider this tax a civic obligation in solidarity with the (uninsured) working folk they claim to support. Instead, they've spent most of the last year demanding that the White House give them subsidies and carve-outs unavailable to anyone else.
But don't expect ObamaCare favors unless you helped to re-elect the President. In an aside in a Federal Register document filed this month, the Administration previewed its forthcoming regulation: "We also intend to propose in future rulemaking to exempt certain self-insured, self-administered plans from the requirement to make reinsurance contributions for the 2015 and 2016 benefit years."
Allow us to translate. "Self-insured" means that a business pays for the medical expenses of its workers directly and hires an insurer as a third-party administrator to process claims, manage care and the like. Most unions as well as big corporations use this arrangement.
But the kicker here is "self-administered." That term refers to self-insured plans that don't contract with the Aetnas and Blue Shields of the world and instead act as their own in-house benefits manager.
Almost no business in the real world still follows this old-fashioned practice as both medicine and medical billing have become more complex. The major exception is a certain type of collectively bargained insurance trust known as Taft-Hartley plans. Such insurance covers about 20 million union members, and four out of five Taft-Hartley trusts are self-administered.
There's no conceivable rationale—other than politics—for releasing union-only plans from a tax that is defined as universal in the Affordable Care Act statute. Like so many other ObamaCare waivers, this labor dispensation will probably turn out to be illegal.
And by the way, this favor harms all other taxpayers. The IRS assesses the reinsurance tax in annual tranches; it must collect $12 billion in 2014, $8 billion in 2015 and $5 billion 2016. So the smaller pool of ordinary people without a union card will pay a larger individual share of the same overall amount.
Count all of this as one more illustration of the way that ObamaCare has put politicians in control of health care. Some people get taxed but others don't, some people get subsidies but others don't, and some have to pay more so Mr. Obama can deliver favors to his political constituents.

[flintlock]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Apart from changing human nature or reforming our economic system to be not based on greed, the most straightforward solution is to: LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO SPEND MONEY, but sadly this ain't gonna happen

True, but I'd settle for limiting political campaign spending and the money thrown at politicians after they leave office, as well as their family, friends, etc. Of course why would they vote to change something that is paying off so well for themselves.

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Here's our problem, writ large.

The avalanche of cash that made Washington rich in the last decade has transformed the culture of a once staid capital and created a new wave of well-heeled insiders...During the past decade, the region added 21,000 households in the nation's top 1 percent. No other metro area came close.






http://www.stltoday.com/news/nationa...d3186a960.html