while CR might say it's good to go. computer experts are saying steer clear. there's no security on the site. the admin is also refusing to answer questions on why there isn't any on it.
@Gacpl...and where did you get that information from? The site is secure and people are signing up like never before. I knew things would turn around.
PN, having consumer reports endorse the Not Affordable Healthcare Act means nothing. CR also endoreses Pampers and both have a common thread; they are both full of Doo-Doo. This just another attempt by the administration to generate their own media spin. I personally think that if you were one of the millions of Americans affected by this debacle you would be singing a different tune. It is easy to be on board with a program that has little to no effect on your Family. This comes down to FACTS PN; and the FACTS clearly demonstrate that the Non-ACA is critically flawed legislation.
it's so good that harry Reid exempted him and his staff from it. that was on the liberal network cnn this morning.
did you notice Metcalf stopped short of saying the website was fixed? and she warned that consumers had no control over the back-end problems,.
HMJC-Don't assume you know me or my situation. What I do know is that for the first time ever-people that I love can now afford healthcare and friends that have gone years with no coverage because of pre-existing conditions can now access healthcare as well. I will pay more, but for a better plan. You pay for what you get and most of America was paying for junk. As far as endorsement, you would have rammed it down my throat if they were no supporting the ACA.
You have alluded in many posts that you have been fortunete and personally are not adversely impacted by this train wreck. If the ACA is such a good deal I would ask that you peruse the link below. If it is not good enough for Congressman and its Staffers can someone in the blue blazes tell me how it is good for anyone else. Smells like Doo-Doo to me.
HMJC- You can't see for looking. When life deals you a lemon-learn to make lemonade. Poor people have been taking lemons and making lemonade for years.
Also, I wasn't put on this earth to live a blessed life while others suffer..We were all placed here to help others..I'm blessed because I look beyond my needs.
gapcl and HMJC are reporting the truth. The GOP "talking points" are so numerous that any losses are replaced by greater gains daily. There's an "early Christmas gift" going on here, but its one for the Republicans.
As gacpl pointed out, Consumer Reports must be slipping. AS OF YESTERDAY:
"The Obamacare insurance marketplace is even more vulnerable to security breaches since the administration “fixed” Healthcare.gov, according to a cyber security expert.
It doesn’t appear that any security fixes were done at all,” David Kennedy, CEO of the online security firm TrustedSec, told the Washington Free Beacon.
Kennedy said fundamental safeguards missing from Healthcare.gov that were identified by his company more than a month ago have yet to be put in place.
“There are a number of security concerns already with the website, and that’s without even actually hacking the site, that’s just a purely passive analysis of [it],” he said. “We found a number of critical exposures that were around sensitive information, the ability to hack into the site, things like that. We reported those issues and none of those appear to have been addressed at all.”
After warning Americans when testifying before Congress on Nov. 19 to stay away from Healthcare.gov, Kennedy now says the situation is even worse."
SO THE SITUATION IS EVEN WORSE. But even worse than that, it appears that there was NO SECURITY EVERY BUILT INTO THE OBAMACARE WEB SITE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! As reported by CNBC.com last week:
"It could take a year to secure the risk of "high exposures" of personal information on the federal Obamacare online exchange, a cybersecurity expert told CNBC on Monday.
"When you develop a website, you develop it with security in mind. And it doesn't appear to have happened this time," said David Kennedy, a so-called "white hat" hacker who tests online security by breaching websites. He testified on Capitol Hill about the flaws of HealthCare.gov last week.
"It's really hard to go back and fix the security around it because security wasn't built into it," said Kennedy, chief executive of TrustedSec. "We're talking multiple months to over a year to at least address some of the critical-to-high exposures on the website itself.""
Further, as reported this past Monday by theguardian.com:
"Some insurers are receiving phone calls from people who believe they are enrolled, but have no record of them. Other insurers are receiving applications, sometimes incomplete, but no payment information.
In one recent case, insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield in North Carolina received more than 500 applications in October but no payment information, which resulted in no actual enrollments.
A report obtained by local North Carolina TV-station WNCN shows how Blue Cross Blue Shield is concerned that those attempting to enroll have not been making payments when redirected – because of a broken hyperlink.
Of the 570 applicants, only 100 have been successfully redirected to the payment options, but none have actually completed the payment process, according to the report.
Experts on commercial payment systems say back-end challenges of this type are not uncommon, but need to be seen as a vital part of the consumer experience.
“One of the 'pain points' of payment is entering information, and that takes time. The focus [in the private sector] is on reducing those steps,” said Jason Oxman, CEO of Electronic Transaction Association. “Once [consumers] have decided on their purchase, payment should be made as easy as possible.”
Some of those involved in earlier healthcare websites say it could cripple Obamacare if it is not ironed out quickly."
So the web site is STILL BROKEN. And while the administration is trying to obfuscate and their spin machine says everything is "fixed," they are digging themselves into a deeper hole as all the flaws of this train wreck are coming out of the woodwork.
But as I've said all along, the web site is but the "tip of the iceberg." But oh what a tip it is. See my latest blog (to be posted soon) on updates from recent news involving ObamaCare issues which arise from other than the web site.
Seb- My mother use to say this all time;"there is more than one way to skin a cat"...
If you don't trust the website- You have THREE alternative options. I've listed them above.
62% of US bankruptcies are due to medical bills, and 4 out of 5 of these people HAD HEALTH INSURANCE. Fight the negativity.
I have stated early on during the months of rhetoric on this topic that I do support a viable system that actually provides AFFORDABLE healthcare to those who need it. Accessability does not provide the means to pay for a plan you could not afford to begin with. Providing healthcare to those who need it funded by making others pay for services they do not need is akin to a pyrimad scheme. The N-ACA did not make healthcare any cheaper; it just provided access to a plan they could not afford previously. If there were only a couple of glitches then ya roger, keep moving forward. However refusing to acknowledge that it might be a good idea to at least suspend the program until it is more viable is selfserving at best. When the brakes systemicaly don't work on a car; it is recalled to make it safe. There is not just a couple of glitches with this pile of ill advised Doo-Doo; it is FACTUALLY flawed and additional issues surface daily. True leaders have the wearwithall to be able to acknowledge that doing what is needed as oppossed to what you want is the appropriate course of action. Good intentions are not a solution. Believe it or not PN I do applaud you supporting a just cause however; supporting it based on what it is suppossed to do as oppossed to what it really achieves acomplishes nothing. Acknowledging that in order for this to work it may take a couple of steps back before it comes to fruition. Lastly, this should not be at the expense of the majority to support the minority.
PN doesn't care about rational arguments or facts. I've seen comments by just about everyone who posts here (including myself) that are opposed to ObamaCare that:
*Health care reform was necessary
*Everyone should be able to get "affordable health care"
*ObamaCare is just not the way to do it.
The Obama/ObamaCare apologists ignore the first two points and then distort the last one into:
"Republicans don't want you to have health care" or "The GOP wants poor people to die." B.S. If it isn't that, it's that opponents are "racist" and just don't want Obama to "succeed."
You have to take the blinders off and take a look at the WHOLE PROGRAM and its effects on the WHOLE COUNTRY. There are many better ways to provide "affordable health care" - and the Republicans have offered NUMEROUS proposals over the years. But the Democrats refuse to acknowledge this because it suits their purpose to keep peddling the propaganda (i.e., LIE).
This past August, Forbes outlined what the GOP has offered:
"Comprehensive Republican health reform plans introduced in Congress
Let’s start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congress—some well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09) or Senate (12/24/09) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.
•Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
•Every American Insured Health Act introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.
•Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.
•Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009.
•H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)."
"Comprehensive conservative Obamacare replacement plans
Likewise, conservative market-oriented health policy scholars have developed a rich menu of potential replacement plans for Obamacare:
•Individual Pay or Play proposed in 2005 by John Goodman; this is a minimalist version of a broader reform envisaged by Goodman built on converting the tax exclusion into universal tax credits.
•Health Status Insurance originally proposed by John Cochrane in 1995.
•Universal Health Savings Accounts proposed by John Goodman and Peter Ferrara in 2012. This combines fixed tax credits with individual pay or play and health status insurance concepts along with Roth-style Health Savings Accounts.
•Fixed tax credits. A variety of proposals have centered on using fix tax credits to replace the current inefficient and unfair tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. Two good explanations of how that would work are here: •James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, “How to Replace Obamacare,” National Affairs, no. 11 (Spring 2012).
•James C. Capretta. Constructing an Alternative to Obamacare: Key Details for a Practical Replacement Program. American Enterprise Institute, December 2012.
•Income-Related Tax Credits proposed by Mark Pauly and John Hoff in Responsible Tax Credits (2002) and endorsed by the American Medical Association. More recently, 8 scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and USC–Jay Bhattacharya, Amitabh Chandra, Michael Chernew, Dana Goldman, Anupam Jena, Darius Lakdawalla,Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson—released Best of Both Worlds: Uniting Universal Coverage and Personal Choice in Health Care (2013) which also is built around a model of individual health insurance subsidized with income-related tax credits.
•Flexible Benefits Tax Credit For Health Insurance by Lynn Etheredge in 2001.
•Near-Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2001 by Sara Singer, Alan Garber and Alain Enthoven (covers only non-elderly).
•Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2013 by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy (covers Medicare and Medicaid in addition to privately insured)."
"Too many people conveniently ignore that in his 2007 State of the Union message President Bush proposed a sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed.
What’s sad is that the Bush plan actually was superior to Obamacare when it comes to providing universal coverage. Remember, Obamacare actually does not provided universal coverage. The latest figures from CBO says that when it is fully implemented in 2016, Obamacare will cut the number of uninsured by only 45%, covering 89% of the non-elderly. Even if illegal immigrants are excluded, this percentage rises to only 92%. In contrast, the Bush plan (without a mandate!) would have cut the number of uninsured by 65%. But that’s ancient history. Consider one of the newest market-oriented health reform plans put on the table by Jim Capretta and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Compared to Obamacare, this plan would cost roughly the same amount yet cover 22% more (8 million!) uninsured. If there’s a superior alternative to the slow-motion train wreck now being implemented, why wouldn’t the President and Democrats in Congress want to seriously consider it as a replacement?
Of course even those willing to acknowledge Bush’s health reform plan then tend to counter with the claim that he wasn’t “serious” about his proposal. It was just a defensive move to defend Republicans in 2008 against the charge that the Republicans didn’t have a plan because they didn’t care about the issue (sound familiar). Those dubious about GWB’s “seriousness” about health reform should do the following thought experiment. Imagine that the Democrats in Congress had passed a bill containing the Bush administration’s health plan–no more, no less. Does anyone seriously believe GWB would have vetoed that bill? If not, I would argue his proposal was a serious one."
The Forbes article concludes with this:
"Compromise is a two-way street. Taking an “I won” approach to negotiations isn’t the wisest way to get to yes. We all now are paying the price for a partisan decision to rush through a massive bill against the strong and persistent opposition not only of Republicans, but the American public. When Obamacare passed on March 23, 2010, the RealClearPolitics poll average shows 50.4% of Americans opposed and only 39.7% in favor. And this double-digit margin of opposition was by no means unusual. One year later—despite the firm assurances by President Obama and then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi that the public would come to favor the law once it was passed—opposed stood at 52.3% opposed to 39.7%. Even today, Americans remain opposed 51.5% to 39.5%. In light of these figures, one can reasonably inquire which party was more faithfully representing the views of the public when it came to health reform.
And one can reasonably ask President Obama and Democrats in Congress: when will you listen to the people? Let’s spare the people a train wreck by delaying this law for a year. This isn’t a Republican idea: it’s just plain common sense."
Unfortunately, the answer to the above question seems to be "Never." Why? Because "common sense" isn't in the Democrats' vocabulary. They proved it when they shoved ObamaCare down the throats of the American people.