Skip to main content

New York Times

Sat Nov 23, 2013

Eric Lipton and Sharon LaFraniere

 

Excerpts

 

CGI Federal, the prime contractor for building the healthcare.gov web site, had concluded long ago that the goal of creating a cutting-edge website before Oct 1, 2013, that would use the latest technologies to dazzle consumers with its many features was. Knowing how long it would take to complete and test the software, the company’s officials and other vendors believed that it was impossible to open a fully functioning exchange on Oct. 1. The Obama Administration insisted that Oct. 1 was not negotiable and they were fed up with what they saw as CGI’s pattern of excuses for missed deadlines.

 

Vital components were never secured, including sufficient access to a data center to prevent the website from crashing. A backup system that could go live if it did crash was not created, a weakness the administration has never disclosed. And the architecture of the system that interacts with the data center where information is stored is so poorly configured that it must be re-designed, a process that experts said typically takes months. An initial assessment identified more than 600 hardware and software defects — “the longest list anybody had ever seen,” one person involved with the project said.

 

When the realization of impending disaster finally hit government officials at the Aug. 27 meeting — just 34 days before the site went live — they threw out nearly 30 requirements, including the Spanish-language version of the site and a payment system for insurers to receive government subsidies for the policies they sold.

 

Even then, the system failed a test of only 500 simulated users in late September. Panicked, agency officials sent out an urgent order to almost double the system’s data capacity, technicians involved in the project have now confirmed. But the site was still down more than half the time in mid-October.

 

CGI and other contractors complained of endlessly shifting requirements and a government decision-making process so cumbersome that it took weeks to resolve elementary questions, such as determining whether users should be required to provide Social Security numbers. Some CGI software engineers ultimately walked out, saying it was impossible to produce good work under such conditions.

 

Another sore point was the Medicare agency’s decision to use database software, from a company called MarkLogic, that managed the data differently from systems by companies like IBM, Microsoft and Oracle. CGI officials argued that it would slow work because it was too unfamiliar. Government officials disagreed, and its configuration remains a serious problem.

 

 

The Medicare agency was not everyone’s first choice to run the $630 million project. White House officials at first debated whether to name an outsider, such as Jon Kingsdale, who set up the landmark Massachusetts health insurance program, or even to create a new agency.

 

Both those ideas fell through, and over the past three years five different lower-level managers held posts overseeing the development of HealthCare.gov, none of whom had the kind of authority to reach across the administration to ensure the project stayed on schedule.

 

As a result, the president’s signature initiative was effectively left under the day-to-day management of Henry Chao, a 19-year veteran of the Medicare agency with little clout and little formal background in computer science.

 

Mr. Chao had to consult with senior department officials and the White House, and was unable to make many decisions on his own. “Nothing was decided without a conversation there,” said one agency official involved in the project, referring to the constant White House demands for oversight. On behalf of Mr. Chao, the Medicare agency declined to comment.

 

Sixteen companies were prequalified to bid on the project, according to administration officials. CGI was picked as the prime contractor over three other bidders: IBM, QSSI and Computer Sciences Corporation. But the Medicare agency reserved the role of general contractor, or system integrator, for itself, even though it lacked the necessary in-house software engineering resources to handle such a task.

 

A pattern of ever-shifting requirements persisted throughout the project, including the administration’s decision late last year to try to redesign the site’s appearance and content to make it more informative to consumers, according to many specialists involved. The administration also decided to reconfigure it as a national site, instead of one where each state had its own front page, after many states decided not to open their own exchanges.

 

Medicare agency officials began to suspect that staff members at CGI were intentionally trying to hide flaws in the system, to cover up for their inability to meet production deadlines. They ordered CGI technicians to drive from their offices near Dulles International Airport in Virginia to the agency headquarters near Baltimore to review their code with government supervisors.

 

The Medicare agency was also growing frustrated with tension among contractors, noting that initial tests of parts of the system were being delayed because of “coordination issues” between CGI and QSSI, which won another part of the job after losing the lead contractor role.

 

Mr. Chao seemed to colleagues to be at his wit’s end. One evening last summer, he called Wallace Fung, who retired in 2008 as the Medicare agency’s chief technology officer. Mr. Fung said in an interview that he told Mr. Chao to greatly simplify the site’s functions. “Henry, this is not going to work. You cannot build this kind of system overnight,” Mr. Fung said he told him.

 

“I know,” Mr. Chao answered, according to Mr. Fung. “But I cannot talk them out of it.”

 

In the last week of September, the disastrous results of the project’s inept management and execution were becoming fully apparent. The agency pressed CGI to explain why a performance test showed that the site could not handle more than 500 simultaneous users. The response once again exhibited the blame-shifting that had plagued the project for months.

 

“We have not identified any inefficient and defective code,” a CGI executive responded in an email to federal project managers, pointing again to database technology that the Medicare agency had ordered it to use as the culprit, at least in part.

 

Despite the behind-the-scenes crisis, the president expressed confidence about the exchange just days before its debut.

 

“This is real simple,” Mr. Obama said, during a speech in Maryland on Sept. 26. “It’s a website where you can compare and purchase affordable health insurance plans side by side the same way you shop for a plane ticket on Kayak, same way you shop for a TV on Amazon. You just go on, and you start looking, and here are all the options.”

Replies sorted oldest to newest

There was a lot of deficiencies with this Project Management exercise.

 

Also, how come IBM lost its bid? Wow!

 

MarkLogic uses noSQL (Not Only SQL) databases and Hadoop Big Data analytics MarkLogic's database was mentioned as one of the issus.

Kari

Obamacare's biggest flaws:

 

"If you like your current Plan, you can keep it"

"If you like you current doctor, you can keep them"

 

Two facts known to not be the case by Obama himself.  Then he added mandates which forced the dumping of people, then tried to say "it's normal", another lie.

 

Another flaw...well ask Jessica Sanford.

 

The IT issues are the least of Obamacare worries.  There is a huge credibility issue now with Obama himself.  The program was based on lies and false promises and is the biggest issue with the program.

 

Now, some of the Obamcare goals I do agree with, I think they are good such as eliminating pre-existing conditions, lifetime cap and sharing/spreading of certain risks, etc. Unfortunately, those good elements are lost is the maze of lies/misrepresentations and the IT issues.

 

This has cost Obama his legacy.  Today his approval rating in 40.5% while Bush's in 11/22/2005 was 40% and the Mayor of Toronto stands at 42%.  Obama's last hope is a deal with Iran.

FM

There is nothing that has cost Obama his legacy. His legacy will not be determined until years after he leaves office. His health care bill is a landmark Act - his signature achievement. It is an achievement - much like how other landmark laws need cleaning up. Give the man credit for getting the nation t think of (i) curbing spiraling health care costs and (ii) bringing health care to a great portion of the nation's citizens.

 

Obama did not lie about keeping your plan or keeping your doctor if you like either of these. If your doctor dies or migrate, can you keep him/her? If a private insurance company says to you I have to raise your premium or sorry I will stop insuring people, can you force them to? This is a free market economy, right? What Obama implied is that if the Exchanges cannot offer anything comparable to your existing (shitty) policies, then keep it. The point about this "keep it" promise is that the Exchanges will bring about competition to what was then an oligopoly, with no competition t a cartel of insurers. Understand? The thing about the mandate is simple free market economics - the more payers into an insurance pool the more risk is spread. Actuarially if you want to make health care a public "Good" you have to mandate on the demand side, not regulate the supply side. We want free market health care, right? The only excveption on the demand side is the "single payer" option like Medicare.

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:

There is nothing that has cost Obama his legacy. His legacy will not be determined until years after he leaves office. His health care bill is a landmark Act - his signature achievement. It is an achievement - much like how other landmark laws need cleaning up. Give the man credit for getting the nation t think of (i) curbing spiraling health care costs and (ii) bringing health care to a great portion of the nation's citizens.

 

Obama did not lie about keeping your plan or keeping your doctor if you like either of these. If your doctor dies or migrate, can you keep him/her? If a private insurance company says to you I have to raise your premium or sorry I will stop insuring people, can you force them to? This is a free market economy, right? What Obama implied is that if the Exchanges cannot offer anything comparable to your existing (shitty) policies, then keep it. The point about this "keep it" promise is that the Exchanges will bring about competition to what was then an oligopoly, with no competition t a cartel of insurers. Understand? The thing about the mandate is simple free market economics - the more payers into an insurance pool the more risk is spread. Actuarially if you want to make health care a public "Good" you have to mandate on the demand side, not regulate the supply side. We want free market health care, right? The only excveption on the demand side is the "single payer" option like Medicare.

Butter it up with more misinformation.  The issue is not a doctor dies or migrating or insurance companies dropping you.  The issue is while Obama made his statements, he then change the law which made most of the millions no longer legal, as such the insurance companies were forced to drop the policies.  Why you think Clinton said he (Obama) need to correct and Obama is now meeting with Insurance to apply some sort of fix/waiver of the law to allow millions back onto their plans.

 

Now, tell us about Jessica Sanford!  She said he cannot afford so she will continue uninsured and pay the tax penalty.  So now, what is the big halabalu when after all the disruption and money, the people who could not afford, still cannot afford.

FM

What Obama is addressing is the minimum standards for insurance policies. When the GOP Governors start cooperating and the Exchanges are running as they should, and competition is injected in this oligopolistic sector, then this would be moot. You chose to ignore 99% of what I responded with as you have no objections to their veracity. You instead talked about the change Obama has to make and which Clinton spoke about, and I explained the Exchanges being thwarted by the GOP Governors. Now address that.

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:

There is nothing that has cost Obama his legacy. His legacy will not be determined until years after he leaves office. His health care bill is a landmark Act - his signature achievement. It is an achievement - much like how other landmark laws need cleaning up. Give the man credit for getting the nation t think of (i) curbing spiraling health care costs and (ii) bringing health care to a great portion of the nation's citizens.

 

Obama did not lie about keeping your plan or keeping your doctor if you like either of these. If your doctor dies or migrate, can you keep him/her? If a private insurance company says to you I have to raise your premium or sorry I will stop insuring people, can you force them to? This is a free market economy, right? What Obama implied is that if the Exchanges cannot offer anything comparable to your existing (shitty) policies, then keep it. The point about this "keep it" promise is that the Exchanges will bring about competition to what was then an oligopoly, with no competition t a cartel of insurers. Understand? The thing about the mandate is simple free market economics - the more payers into an insurance pool the more risk is spread. Actuarially if you want to make health care a public "Good" you have to mandate on the demand side, not regulate the supply side. We want free market health care, right? The only excveption on the demand side is the "single payer" option like Medicare.

I suggest that you wait before jumping into your usual blind Obama hero worshipping.  Unlike Medicare and Medicaid this ACA is being administered almost 100% by private entities over which the govt has little control.  But on whom they depend on to render this a success or a failure.

 

ACA determines the standards to which health insurance policies offered in the individual and small business markets must adhere to.  If some one could have only afforded a "shitty" plan, and now faces a steep increase in premiums now that the ACA plan has certain standards.  And so they decide to drop it and dare the IRS to assess the fine.  This is the very person who these exchanges will need if these plans are to work.  These are not going to be the oldest or the sickest, as they wouldn't have bought a "shitty"plan.

 

So let us wait until next year before we scream about whether ACA is covering "those who couldnt get insurance before" (meaning those who cannot afford it, and who will not get enough of a subsidy to buy one now).  If the pool in the exchanges doesn't include enough healthy people then there will be massive premium increases as companies scramble to cover the cost of insuring a population which turned out to be older and sicker than was originally anticipated.

 

The problem with ACA is that the messaging was in the hands of politicians and other political operatives.  It was obvious from the beginning that some people would have had to pay more, as plans which exclude maternity are no longer available, even to those who see no reason why they should pay for this.  So why didn't Obama say so, and avoid the drama which he now finds himself in, with even many Democrats now running for cover?

 

It is also obvious that this was a gamble, based upon who enrolled.  Clearly people who coudnt get coverage because they had pre existing conditions will now buy it.  Driving up the costs to insure. 

 

What is not obvious is whether the 30 y/o temp is going to shell out cash to buy insurance when he knows that (unless he gets into an accident, in which case ER will take him, and he will be in trouble if he needs future treatment, but there are many who will take that risk) he will pay way more to buy insurance than he would to get his annual physical.  Many of them (who lean Democratic as you know) have already calculated that it will be better just to pay the fine instead of shelling out a few hundred dollars a month.

 

So let us cease praising Obama until next year this time when the 2015 premiums are announced.  If it works then more will buy in and premium increases will be small.  If not then there is a risk of the "death spiral" that we are hearing lots about.  What kind of legacy will Obama have then, because I cant really think of anything else that he can rely on, if Obamacare doesn't work?

 

BTW the "competition" in these exchanges comes from some Medicaid HMOS with restricted networks of doctors etc who cater to poor people.  Aside from that you are left with the same insurance companies that were around before.  So do not let the Democrats (or the GOP) fool you into thinking that increased "competition" is going to reduce premiums.

FM
Last edited by Former Member

I thought Obama would have made healthcare affordable. I am paying $1,300 each month.  Instead of going down, my premiums increased. Time to relocate.

 

For Israel, this is a Rubicon crossed long ago. Despite the country’s mania for most things American, when it comes to health care, Israel chose a system based more on the European model. The government’s role is central as both funder and regulator. Yet, going by many indexes of health outcomes, the result in terms of quality of care is often better — and definitely cheaper than in the U.S. Under the Israeli system, the percentage of the country’s gross domestic product going to health care is less than half that of the United States. And coverage is universal.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/15...?p=all#ixzz2lZ00HEAR

FM

TI, a European-style single payer system would warp the supply side of health care delivery. That's why you have waiting lists and not the type of innovation seen in American medicine and medical procedures.

 

CaribJ, I praise Obama for tackling a situation that was untenable - that is, what went on before he took office. He said health care costs are rising but Americans are not getting healthier, and the percentage of GDP that goes to the health care sector was increasing above historic norms. While the wealthy were getting superior health care costs millions were not, all taxpayers paid for emergencies, and businesses were being burdened by an uncompetitive item of expenditure (recall the debates in the 2008 campaign). So leave the emotional "blind praise for Obama" aside. Your comments on the realities have merit, and I did say that the implementation is flawed and so far the GOP Governors resistance by not being "all in" is bearing out your points. On the supply side, get those Exchanges running efficiently and the government subsidies (reducing the "tax expenditure" given to cadillac plans and taxes from the wealthy) to raise effective demand, and you should see a better system than the one TI talks about (which is true for myself as well - my company pays more now than since Obama took over).

 

I also agreed that Obama did not communicate well all the warts that could be expected with his plans. It's either playing politics, incompetence or naivete (unexpected Republican intransigence). either way Obama looks bad and he's tasking a hit. But don't fault his intent and the success he achieved in getting thee Affordable Care Act passed (never mind the way it happened).

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:

TI, a European-style single payer system would warp the supply side of health care delivery. That's why you have waiting lists and not the type of innovation seen in American medicine and medical procedures.

 

CaribJ, I praise Obama for tackling a situation that was untenable - that is, what went on before he took office. He said health care costs are rising but Americans are not getting healthier, and the percentage of GDP that goes to the health care sector was increasing above historic norms. While the wealthy were getting superior health care costs millions were not, all taxpayers paid for emergencies, and businesses were being burdened by an uncompetitive item of expenditure (recall the debates in the 2008 campaign). So leave the emotional "blind praise for Obama" aside. Your comments on the realities have merit, and I did say that the implementation is flawed and so far the GOP Governors resistance by not being "all in" is bearing out your points. On the supply side, get those Exchanges running efficiently and the government subsidies (reducing the "tax expenditure" given to cadillac plans and taxes from the wealthy) to raise effective demand, and you should see a better system than the one TI talks about (which is true for myself as well - my company pays more now than since Obama took over).

 

I also agreed that Obama did not communicate well all the warts that could be expected with his plans. It's either playing politics, incompetence or naivete (unexpected Republican intransigence). either way Obama looks bad and he's tasking a hit. But don't fault his intent and the success he achieved in getting thee Affordable Care Act passed (never mind the way it happened).

In other words, lie!!  Kari, every one wants more affordable care and everyone wants all to be covered.  Neither will reach everyone's needs but whatever is being done must be done with openness and transparency.  Let the people know the facts and all aspects and then they will decide.

 

My opinion is this needs to be approached in a piecemeal manner addressing the specific shortcomings. There are major issues with the current status.  Obama should have sought more industrial involvement to help come up with a solution rather than trying to dictate from Washington.  This speaks to the lack of leadership coming from Obama.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:

In other words, lie!!  Kari, every one wants more affordable care and everyone wants all to be covered.  Neither will reach everyone's needs but whatever is being done must be done with openness and transparency.  Let the people know the facts and all aspects and then they will decide.

 

My opinion is this needs to be approached in a piecemeal manner addressing the specific shortcomings. There are major issues with the current status.  Obama should have sought more industrial involvement to help come up with a solution rather than trying to dictate from Washington.  This speaks to the lack of leadership coming from Obama.

The piecemeal approach has been the standard approach all these years and guess who shaped the industry? Special interests.

 

Obama did exactly the leadership thing you talked about - the first people he got on board were the Insurance CEOs - remember the famous White House visit they made and the press conference afterwards?/ That gave hope.

 

Even before the law became effective for the most part the insurance companies did a lot of good things - like free preventative procedures, promoting healthier lives and pay-for-service (whether you have 1 or 10 procedures), among the many changes.

 

It's the cost side that everyone is focusing on, as they should. And do you know what's subverting the cost side? You guessed it - the Republican Governors and legislators at the State level. A lot of the ACA is done at the State level. The Federal government is not as involved in the weeds as you might think.

 

I think this is one of your better posts though. You left the emotions and opinions out, even as you called Obama's leadership into question and his truthfulness - though both opinions are not as clear cut as you (and others) have made them out to be.

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by baseman:

In other words, lie!!  Kari, every one wants more affordable care and everyone wants all to be covered.  Neither will reach everyone's needs but whatever is being done must be done with openness and transparency.  Let the people know the facts and all aspects and then they will decide.

 

My opinion is this needs to be approached in a piecemeal manner addressing the specific shortcomings. There are major issues with the current status.  Obama should have sought more industrial involvement to help come up with a solution rather than trying to dictate from Washington.  This speaks to the lack of leadership coming from Obama.

The piecemeal approach has been the standard approach all these years and guess who shaped the industry? Special interests.

 

Obama did exactly the leadership thing you talked about - the first people he got on board were the Insurance CEOs - remember the famous White House visit they made and the press conference afterwards?/ That gave hope.

 

Even before the law became effective for the most part the insurance companies did a lot of good things - like free preventative procedures, promoting healthier lives and pay-for-service (whether you have 1 or 10 procedures), among the many changes.

 

It's the cost side that everyone is focusing on, as they should. And do you know what's subverting the cost side? You guessed it - the Republican Governors and legislators at the State level. A lot of the ACA is done at the State level. The Federal government is not as involved in the weeds as you might think.

 

I think this is one of your better posts though. You left the emotions and opinions out, even as you called Obama's leadership into question and his truthfulness - though both opinions are not as clear cut as you (and others) have made them out to be.

Listen banna, the problem people were about 3-5% of the population, so why slash and burn the other 95% to fix the 5%.  The real problem for many is the weak economy and lack of jobs.

 

Obama leadership style saw lies and misrepresentation to sell the pig-in-bag to the American people.  People are very upset and disappointed on what's on offer.  As I said, ask the Jessica lady from Washington state.  Your definition style is very different from mine.  Tell me, why is Obama ratings now equals to Bush's this time eight years ago....oh, it's the Republican's fault, right.

 

However, I do believe there are big issues to be addressed, I don't hink the approach was correct.

FM

30 million without health care coverage means two things - (1) taxpayers pay for their emergencies and catastrophic illnesses; and (2)10% of the population (including a lot of children) are without health care coverage.

 

Over 70% of bankruptcies declared in the last 5 years was because of health care-related expenses.

 

The percentage of health care expenditure was rising above 20% of GDP

 

Free Preventative care was an alien concept.

 

The consumer (the patient) was one layer removed from an oligopolistic payer (the insurance company) and so the provider (hospitals and doctors) would over-prescribe as it swelled their bottom line.

 

Obama borrowed from the Republicans - free-market approach. He sought to increase the pool of buyers of insurance by the technique of the mandate (fine/subsidy). The insurance actuarial calculus would eventually cause a lowering of the deliverable (healthy consumers would in a sense subsidize the old and infirmed). This is making a public good a private deliverable. To make this work the Exchanges need to be cranking. The States need to get on board - there are 30 States with Republican Governors and a few more with a Republican Legislators. Go Figure.

Kari
Originally Posted by Nehru:

Obama rules from the heart NOT the Polls. Health Care is a Human Right and EVERYONR deserve to have adequate coverage, period!!!

Someone has to pay the piper.

FM
Originally Posted by Kari:

30 million without health care coverage means two things - (1) taxpayers pay for their emergencies and catastrophic illnesses; and (2)10% of the population (including a lot of children) are without health care coverage.

 

Over 70% of bankruptcies declared in the last 5 years was because of health care-related expenses.

 

The percentage of health care expenditure was rising above 20% of GDP

 

Free Preventative care was an alien concept.

 

The consumer (the patient) was one layer removed from an oligopolistic payer (the insurance company) and so the provider (hospitals and doctors) would over-prescribe as it swelled their bottom line.

 

Obama borrowed from the Republicans - free-market approach. He sought to increase the pool of buyers of insurance by the technique of the mandate (fine/subsidy). The insurance actuarial calculus would eventually cause a lowering of the deliverable (healthy consumers would in a sense subsidize the old and infirmed). This is making a public good a private deliverable. To make this work the Exchanges need to be cranking. The States need to get on board - there are 30 States with Republican Governors and a few more with a Republican Legislators. Go Figure.

True, under Obama's stagnant economy.

 

However, I agree with the issue of the the smaller group of sick and special situations.

 

Kari, you are a left-wing socialist idealog who lost out in Guyana, now you are exercising this displaced dream in that heart of the free enterprise economy.  Thanks to the enterprising people, you have a platform for your views.  And if you fall flat, they will still take care of you.

FM
Originally Posted by Observer:

Kathleen Sebelius has been in the hot seat for the whole fiasco.  Republicans have been on a witch-hunt and clamouring for her resignation.  We'll see what happens.

Nah, she is just the fall "guy".  The buck stops with Obama, the fiasco represents his lack of management skills.

 

Remember, the banna lied to the people of the nation, why do you think he was not briefed but insisted on launching anyway.  I just don't buy it.

 

Poor Obama, this is not community organizing.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
True, under Obama's stagnant economy.

 

However, I agree with the issue of the the smaller group of sick and special situations.

 

Kari, you are a left-wing socialist idealog who lost out in Guyana, now you are exercising this displaced dream in that heart of the free enterprise economy.  Thanks to the enterprising people, you have a platform for your views.  And if you fall flat, they will still take care of you.

You were doing so well, but like an addict you had a relapse in a few seconds.

 

Did you pull this "left-wing ideologue" stuff from your ass?

 

And whom did you think Obama got this stagnant economy from?

 

If you have nothing to add to this conversation, do us a favor and go play with your doll-house.

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by baseman:
True, under Obama's stagnant economy.

 

However, I agree with the issue of the the smaller group of sick and special situations.

 

Kari, you are a left-wing socialist idealog who lost out in Guyana, now you are exercising this displaced dream in that heart of the free enterprise economy.  Thanks to the enterprising people, you have a platform for your views.  And if you fall flat, they will still take care of you.

You were doing so well, but like an addict you had a relapse in a few seconds.

 

Did you pull this "left-wing ideologue" stuff from your ass?

 

And whom did you think Obama got this stagnant economy from?

 

If you have nothing to add to this conversation, do us a favor and go play with your doll-house.

Like the PNC and PPP, you need a generation to turn things around.  This is the mindset of left-wing losers.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by baseman:
True, under Obama's stagnant economy.

 

However, I agree with the issue of the the smaller group of sick and special situations.

 

Kari, you are a left-wing socialist idealog who lost out in Guyana, now you are exercising this displaced dream in that heart of the free enterprise economy.  Thanks to the enterprising people, you have a platform for your views.  And if you fall flat, they will still take care of you.

You were doing so well, but like an addict you had a relapse in a few seconds.

 

Did you pull this "left-wing ideologue" stuff from your ass?

 

And whom did you think Obama got this stagnant economy from?

 

If you have nothing to add to this conversation, do us a favor and go play with your doll-house.

Like the PNC and PPP, you need a generation to turn things around.  This is the mindset of left-wing losers.

You are a lunatic as the rev...where do you get that crap that left wingers are losers? The fact is most successful people are actually liberals.

FM
Originally Posted by Observer:

Kathleen Sebelius has been in the hot seat for the whole fiasco.  Republicans have been on a witch-hunt and clamouring for her resignation.  We'll see what happens.

Nah, she is the fall "guy".  Obama lack of management skills is the major issue.  Remember, he openly lied, he has a huge credibility issue.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Observer:

Kathleen Sebelius has been in the hot seat for the whole fiasco.  Republicans have been on a witch-hunt and clamouring for her resignation.  We'll see what happens.

Nah, she is the fall "guy".  Obama lack of management skills is the major issue.  Remember, he openly lied, he has a huge credibility issue.

You are talking straight up shit. Obama is the president. He does not have to manage the development of a website. There are experts to do that. Sebelius ought to begin with the hundreds of really cool developers available than that fool they selected. I do not know how or why he was selected but his ass need to be banned from web development. They needed to give it to people developing Amazon or IBM...people with experience doing this job. She could have hired even Halliburton or Booze Allen to manage and not be let down by that fraud.

FM

 

* The Rev doesn't believe in kicking a man(Obama) when he is down.

 

* But the whole world knows the Obamacare rollout has been a disaster.

 

* This Obamacare thing looks unsustainable.

 

BOTTOM LINE:

 

* Obamacare may be headed for the scrapheap.

 

* Oh well! Most presidents have terrible 2nd terms---Obama is no different.

 

Rev

FM
Originally Posted by Danyael:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Observer:

Kathleen Sebelius has been in the hot seat for the whole fiasco.  Republicans have been on a witch-hunt and clamouring for her resignation.  We'll see what happens.

Nah, she is the fall "guy".  Obama lack of management skills is the major issue.  Remember, he openly lied, he has a huge credibility issue.

You are talking straight up shit. Obama is the president. He does not have to manage the development of a website. There are experts to do that. Sebelius ought to begin with the hundreds of really cool developers available than that fool they selected. I do not know how or why he was selected but his ass need to be banned from web development. They needed to give it to people developing Amazon or IBM...people with experience doing this job. She could have hired even Halliburton or Booze Allen to manage and not be let down by that fraud.

I don't think you have a clue of management responsibility.  Please read SOX 404.

FM
Originally Posted by Rev:

 

 

* The Rev doesn't believe in kicking a man(Obama) when he is down.

 

* But the whole world knows the Obamacare rollout has been a disaster.

 

* This Obamacare thing looks unsustainable.

 

BOTTOM LINE:

 

* Obamacare may be headed for the scrapheap.

 

* Oh well! Most presidents have terrible 2nd terms---Obama is no different.

 

Rev

No it is not. It will be here to stay with modifications as better ways to handle these special issues when they come up. It is a platform to build something on where none existed before.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Danyael:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Observer:

Kathleen Sebelius has been in the hot seat for the whole fiasco.  Republicans have been on a witch-hunt and clamouring for her resignation.  We'll see what happens.

Nah, she is the fall "guy".  Obama lack of management skills is the major issue.  Remember, he openly lied, he has a huge credibility issue.

You are talking straight up shit. Obama is the president. He does not have to manage the development of a website. There are experts to do that. Sebelius ought to begin with the hundreds of really cool developers available than that fool they selected. I do not know how or why he was selected but his ass need to be banned from web development. They needed to give it to people developing Amazon or IBM...people with experience doing this job. She could have hired even Halliburton or Booze Allen to manage and not be let down by that fraud.

I don't think you have a clue of management responsibility.  Please read SOX 404.

Dude...quit the shit.  I do not have to read a damn thing. The fact is obama had to delegate not micro manage.

FM
Originally Posted by Danyael:
 

No it is not. It will be here to stay with modifications as better ways to handle these special issues when they come up. It is a platform to build something on where none existed before.

 

* Well! A massive undertaking like Obamacare is bound to hit into some brick walls.

 

* Failure is good if you can learn from it.

 

* So maybe lessons will be learned from the initial setbacks----and Obamacare may not head for the scrapheap after all.

 

* You folks know the Rev has hammered Obama in the past----but lemme give him some credit---at least he tried a thing with his Obamacare----don't believe he was entirely truthful.

 

* Anyway Obamacare is now the law of the land

 

* Let's hope it gets fixed.

 

Rev

 

PS. Nobody stole the Rev's handle.

FM
Originally Posted by Rev:

 

* The Rev doesn't believe in kicking a man(Obama) when he is down.

 

* But the whole world knows the Obamacare rollout has been a disaster.

 

* This Obamacare thing looks unsustainable.

 

BOTTOM LINE:

 

* Obamacare may be headed for the scrapheap.

 

* Oh well! Most presidents have terrible 2nd terms---Obama is no different.

 

Rev

 

The man famous for making predictions (especially about Obama) is at it again......

Kari

CNN: NEW OBAMA POLL NUMBERS ARE "BRUTAL" AND IN A NOSE DIVE

 

Things are bleak for the former community organizer…
CNN says Obama’s latest poll numbers are “brutal” and in a “nose dive.”

 

A majority of Americans say Obama is not honest or trustworthy. Only 40% believe he can manage the federal government.
CNN reported:

 

Rev

FM
Originally Posted by Rev:

CNN: NEW OBAMA POLL NUMBERS ARE "BRUTAL" AND IN A NOSE DIVE

 

Things are bleak for the former community organizer…
CNN says Obama’s latest poll numbers are “brutal” and in a “nose dive.”

 

A majority of Americans say Obama is not honest or trustworthy. Only 40% believe he can manage the federal government.
CNN reported:

 

Rev

Rev

 

I am not surprised at these numbers. Obama seems to handle the US economy like a community leader. He also leads from behind in foreign affairs. Putin edged out Obama as the most influential leader in the world. This record speaks for itself.

 

A new President will pull America of this mess. 

FM
Originally Posted by yuji22:
Rev

 

I am not surprised at these numbers. Obama seems to handle the US economy like a community leader. He also leads from behind in foreign affairs. Putin edged out Obama as the most influential leader in the world. This record speaks for itself.

 

A new President will pull America of this mess. 

Obama seems to handle the US economy like a community leader.....wanna give some examples

 

He also leads from behind in foreign affairs......wanna give some examples

 

Putin edged out Obama as the most influential leader in the world......show examples that back this up.

 

 

In summary, speak to the steps taken after the Great recession - the financial sector, the housing sector, jobs, the auto industry; the Arab Spring and how America played its hand in democratization; and America's influence all over the world as opposed to Russian influence.

 

Never mind,you're just a bigoted idiot with no idea what you say or how to back up what you say - no facts, just fart.

Kari

American Prosperity is Gone

welfare
 

 
Share

America was once a prosperous country that was looked upon with envy by foreign nations. In the 1950s our economy was strong and the future looked promising. Our infrastructure was expanding and industrial production was booming. Clearly, we were on the right path. In the past, we produced over 90 percent of the goods we consumed. Our survival depended solely on the strength of our citizens–the way it should be.

Now, the U.S. economy is in shambles. Failed economic policy decisions by our leaders have done irreparable damage and we are suffering.

Over 16,000 U.S. companies have been bought out by foreign nations.   Once these companies are acquired by their new owners the downsizing begins, leaving hardworking Americans out of a job.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) states the U.S. produced 32 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) in the beginning of the 21th century. In one decade our surplus has been gravely to a deficit equaling 10 percent of our GDP.

Over 30 percent of our manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last decade alone. Our hopes and dreams for a strong economic future have been disregarded and shipped overseas to nations like China and Vietnam.

Corporations and politicians abuse and manipulate policies to increase their wealth, without ever thinking about the devastating consequences on the economy and the resulting tragedy: American families are left with nothing.

As the cost of living rises and wages remain stagnant, American workers are struggling to survive. No American should have to worry about how they will feed their loved ones.

The solution is to end the disastrous trade policies that have brought ruin to the U.S. economy. America must not tolerate the one-way “free” trade policies like NAFTA and the KORUS FTA. We must end our membership in the WTO. We must bring jobs back home to America. Only then can America become prosperous once again. 

FM

The World's Most Powerful People 2013

 

Who's No. 1?

Who’s more powerful: the autocratic leader of a former superpower or the handcuffed commander in chief of the most dominant country in the world? This year the votes for the World’s Most Powerful went to Russian President Vladimir Putin. He climbs one spot ahead of U.S. President Barack Obama, who held the title in 2012.

Putin has solidified his control over Russia while Obama’s lame duck period has seemingly set in earlier than usual for a two-term president — latest example: the government shutdown mess. Anyone watching this year’s chess match over Syria and NSA leaks has a clear idea of the shifting individual power dynamics.

The Most Powerful People in the World list is an annual snapshot of the heads of state, CEOs and financiers, philanthropists and NGO chiefs, billionaires, and entrepreneurs who truly rule the world. It represents the collective wisdom of top FORBES editors, who consider hundreds of nominees before ranking the planet’s top 72 power-brokers – one for every 100 million people on Earth — based on their scope of influence and their financial resources relative to their peers. (See full methodology here).

This year’s list features 17 heads of state who run nations with a combined GDP of some $48 trillion — including the three most powerful people, Putin, Obama and Xi Jinping, the general secretary of the Communist Party of China. The 27 CEOs and chairs control over $3 trillion in annual revenues, and 12 are entrepreneurs, including new billionaires on the list, Nigeria’sAliko Dangote (No. 64), founder of Dangote Group, and Oracle’s Larry Ellison(No. 58). Speaking of, this year’s class has 28 billionaires valued in excess of $564 billion.

FM

Poverty in the U.S.A: Nearly 50 Million Americans on Food Stamps

US food stamp use swells to a record 47.8 million

 375 
 
  79  51 
 
 
  2590
 
povertyusa

A record number of Americans are using food stamps, known today as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Despite official proclamations that the recession has ended and an economic recovery is underway, families are turning to SNAP benefits in record numbers. The working poor comprise a growing number of food stamp recipients, and about half of those receiving benefits are children.

Enrollment in the food stamp program has increased by 70 percent since 2008, to a record 47.8 million people as of December 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. The biggest factor driving the increase is the stagnating job market and a rising poverty rate. This means that a staggering 15 percent of the US population receives food stamp benefits, nearly double the rate of 1975.

In 2008, at the onset of the recession, 28.2 million people were enrolled in SNAP. While the official jobless rate, which peaked at 10 percent in 2009, had dipped slightly to 7.7 percent as of February this year, the SNAP program has continued to grow. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that food stamp usage will drop only marginally, to 43.3 million people, by 2017. Even this estimate is predicated on the unemployment rate dropping to 5.6 percent over the next four years.

The number of people using food stamps roughly corresponds to the number of Americans living in poverty, which rose to just below 50 million people in 2011. Utilizing the Supplementary Poverty Measure (SPM), which factors in expenses for food, clothing, shelter, health care and other essentials, the US Census Bureau estimates that nearly one in six people in the US is living in poverty.

The average monthly benefit per person receiving SNAP benefits was only $133 last year. In order to qualify, a household’s income cannot be more than 130 percent of the poverty level, which is about $25,000 for a family of three, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

Enrollees receive benefits on a debit card, which can to be used to purchase cereal, meats, fruits, vegetables, bread, milk and other staples. When food is running low, recipients often seek out 24-hour grocery stores, waiting for 12 a.m. for their monthly benefits to kick in.

The fact that 15 percent of the population must rely on SNAP benefits has received little attention in the media or from politicians of either big business party. Earlier this week, President Obama signed a bill making permanent $85 billion in sequester cuts, which will slash billions of dollars from programs benefiting the poor, including Head Start, special education, housing and many other programs.

While SNAP technically evaded the sequester ax, other nutrition programs are facing deep cuts. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC, could be forced to cut almost 600,000 mothers, infants and children from its rolls. About half of all infants born in the US qualify for WIC benefits, and mothers use them to purchase food, formula and other vital necessities, as well as to access nutrition education and other services.

Due to the sequester cuts, about 4 million fewer meals will be delivered through Meals on Wheels programs, which provide daily meals to homebound seniors. For many recipients, it is not only their only hot meal of the day, but their sole connection to others in the community.

Millions of the long-term jobless—who have been forced to turn to food stamps—will also see an 11 percent cut to their extended unemployment benefits. The sequester cuts—which will constitute the baseline of future allocations of federal spending—come as the need for social programs benefiting working families is increasing at a rapid pace due to falling wages, unemployment and growing poverty.

The US government spent a record $74.6 billion on SNAP benefits last year, more than double the $30.4 billion spent on the program in 2007. Rules adopted under the Clinton administration allowed some leeway for states in allowing residents to qualify for benefits.

In 2001-2002, six states eased the income and asset requirements for SNAP benefits, making it somewhat easier for people to qualify if they had a low-wage job, or some savings. By 2009, in response to the recession, 17 states and US territories eased their eligibility requirements. Today, three out of four households receiving SNAP benefits include at least one person who is working.

The Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus bill expanded the SNAP program, raising the level of benefits recipients can receive, and allowing people to keep their benefits longer. This expansion is set to expire on October 31, and there are no moves afoot to extend it. The CBPP estimates that food stamp benefits will decrease by $8 per month per person with this expiration.

As of November 1, SNAP benefits will be returned to the level of the so-called Thrifty Food Plan, the lowest of four nutrition estimates calculated by the US Department of Agriculture. The four plans—Thrifty, Low-Cost, Moderate Cost, and Liberal—vary widely in cost. In February 2013, a family of four with two children on the “Thrifty” plan was expected to budget $636 a month for food at home, while the same family on the “Liberal” plan would spent $1,257—almost double the amount.

As with all aspects of social life in America, there is one standard for the working class and another for the wealthy. In this case the divide is between those who struggle to provide adequate nutrition for their families under conditions of rising costs for housing, utilities and other necessities, and the tiny elite who think nothing of splurging on a restaurant meal with a tab far in excess of the “Liberal” monthly budget for a family of four.

Almost half the children presently receiving SNAP benefits—some 10 million—already live in extreme poverty, which means household income is less than half the official poverty level, already set an unrealistically low level. Another 9 million receiving food stamps are elderly or have a serious disability. The cuts in SNAP benefits will quite literally take food off the table for millions of American families at a time of deepening poverty and burgeoning social inequality.

FM
Originally Posted by yuji22:

Poverty in the U.S.A: Nearly 50 Million Americans on Food Stamps

US food stamp use swells to a record 47.8 million

 375 
 
  79  51 
 
 
  2590
 
povertyusa

A record number of Americans are using food stamps, known today as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Despite official proclamations that the recession has ended and an economic recovery is underway, families are turning to SNAP benefits in record numbers. The working poor comprise a growing number of food stamp recipients, and about half of those receiving benefits are children.

Enrollment in the food stamp program has increased by 70 percent since 2008, to a record 47.8 million people as of December 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. The biggest factor driving the increase is the stagnating job market and a rising poverty rate. This means that a staggering 15 percent of the US population receives food stamp benefits, nearly double the rate of 1975.

In 2008, at the onset of the recession, 28.2 million people were enrolled in SNAP. While the official jobless rate, which peaked at 10 percent in 2009, had dipped slightly to 7.7 percent as of February this year, the SNAP program has continued to grow. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that food stamp usage will drop only marginally, to 43.3 million people, by 2017. Even this estimate is predicated on the unemployment rate dropping to 5.6 percent over the next four years.

The number of people using food stamps roughly corresponds to the number of Americans living in poverty, which rose to just below 50 million people in 2011. Utilizing the Supplementary Poverty Measure (SPM), which factors in expenses for food, clothing, shelter, health care and other essentials, the US Census Bureau estimates that nearly one in six people in the US is living in poverty.

The average monthly benefit per person receiving SNAP benefits was only $133 last year. In order to qualify, a household’s income cannot be more than 130 percent of the poverty level, which is about $25,000 for a family of three, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

Enrollees receive benefits on a debit card, which can to be used to purchase cereal, meats, fruits, vegetables, bread, milk and other staples. When food is running low, recipients often seek out 24-hour grocery stores, waiting for 12 a.m. for their monthly benefits to kick in.

The fact that 15 percent of the population must rely on SNAP benefits has received little attention in the media or from politicians of either big business party. Earlier this week, President Obama signed a bill making permanent $85 billion in sequester cuts, which will slash billions of dollars from programs benefiting the poor, including Head Start, special education, housing and many other programs.

While SNAP technically evaded the sequester ax, other nutrition programs are facing deep cuts. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC, could be forced to cut almost 600,000 mothers, infants and children from its rolls. About half of all infants born in the US qualify for WIC benefits, and mothers use them to purchase food, formula and other vital necessities, as well as to access nutrition education and other services.

Due to the sequester cuts, about 4 million fewer meals will be delivered through Meals on Wheels programs, which provide daily meals to homebound seniors. For many recipients, it is not only their only hot meal of the day, but their sole connection to others in the community.

Millions of the long-term jobless—who have been forced to turn to food stamps—will also see an 11 percent cut to their extended unemployment benefits. The sequester cuts—which will constitute the baseline of future allocations of federal spending—come as the need for social programs benefiting working families is increasing at a rapid pace due to falling wages, unemployment and growing poverty.

The US government spent a record $74.6 billion on SNAP benefits last year, more than double the $30.4 billion spent on the program in 2007. Rules adopted under the Clinton administration allowed some leeway for states in allowing residents to qualify for benefits.

In 2001-2002, six states eased the income and asset requirements for SNAP benefits, making it somewhat easier for people to qualify if they had a low-wage job, or some savings. By 2009, in response to the recession, 17 states and US territories eased their eligibility requirements. Today, three out of four households receiving SNAP benefits include at least one person who is working.

The Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus bill expanded the SNAP program, raising the level of benefits recipients can receive, and allowing people to keep their benefits longer. This expansion is set to expire on October 31, and there are no moves afoot to extend it. The CBPP estimates that food stamp benefits will decrease by $8 per month per person with this expiration.

As of November 1, SNAP benefits will be returned to the level of the so-called Thrifty Food Plan, the lowest of four nutrition estimates calculated by the US Department of Agriculture. The four plans—Thrifty, Low-Cost, Moderate Cost, and Liberal—vary widely in cost. In February 2013, a family of four with two children on the “Thrifty” plan was expected to budget $636 a month for food at home, while the same family on the “Liberal” plan would spent $1,257—almost double the amount.

As with all aspects of social life in America, there is one standard for the working class and another for the wealthy. In this case the divide is between those who struggle to provide adequate nutrition for their families under conditions of rising costs for housing, utilities and other necessities, and the tiny elite who think nothing of splurging on a restaurant meal with a tab far in excess of the “Liberal” monthly budget for a family of four.

Almost half the children presently receiving SNAP benefits—some 10 million—already live in extreme poverty, which means household income is less than half the official poverty level, already set an unrealistically low level. Another 9 million receiving food stamps are elderly or have a serious disability. The cuts in SNAP benefits will quite literally take food off the table for millions of American families at a time of deepening poverty and burgeoning social inequality.

 

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×