[speechlesstx]

There was no chance of bipartisanship on Obamacare, and the only reason the budget deal wad passed was because the Messiah's Temple was left out of the process.

[paraclete]

well at least one part of government is working again

[tomder55]

See my comment about the 'bipartisan ' agreement here.....
Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Obama admits big government doesn't work

[tomder55]

Ezra Klein at the Compost reports :

Today, the Obama administration announced that people whose insurance plans were canceled this year will "temporarily" be exempted from the law's individual mandate. Here's how they're doing it -- and what it means for the law.
1. The individual mandate includes a "hardship exemption." People who qualify can either ignore the individual mandate altogether or purchase a cheap, bare-bones catastrophic insurance plan that's typically only available to people under 30.

2. According to HHS, the exemption covers people who "experienced financial or domestic circumstances, including an unexpected natural or human-caused event, such that he or she had a significant, unexpected increase in essential expenses that prevented him or her from obtaining coverage under a qualified health plan."
3. Today, the administration agreed with a group of senators, led by Mark Warner of Virginia, who argued that having your insurance plan canceled counted as "an unexpected natural or human-caused event." For these people, in other words, Obamacare itself is the hardship. You can read HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' full letter here. HHS's formal guidance is here.

4. How may people does this affect? No one quite knows. Republicans estimate that about 5 million people have seen their plans canceled. The Obama administration believes the number, at this point, is actually in the hundreds of thousands. But there's no truly reliable figure here.

5. The Obama administration argues that there's little reason to fear that these people won't purchase health insurance if they could otherwise afford to. After all, they were already buying health insurance on the individual market before there was any penalty at all. They clearly want health insurance. This just smooths their transition and, in the cases where there really is financial strain, gives them time to figure out a solution.

6. But this puts the administration on some very difficult-to-defend ground. Normally, the individual mandate applies to anyone who can purchase qualifying insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. The Obama administration is erasing that threshold for people whose insurance has been canceled. If they decide insurance costing 5 percent of their income is too expensive, then they can simply opt out. But if someone who's currently uninsured decides 5 percent of their income is more than they can pay, then they have to pay the individual mandate's penalty. What's the logic in that?

7. The same goes for the cheap catastrophic plans sold to customers under age 30 in the exchanges. A 45-year-old whose plan just got canceled can now purchase catastrophic coverage. A 45-year-old who didn't have insurance at all can't. The Obama administration argues that they're just giving a bit of extra help to people who lost what they already had. But why don't people who couldn't afford a plan in the first place deserve the same kind of help?

8. This puts the first crack in the individual mandate. The question is whether it's the last. If Democratic members of Congress see this as solving their political problem with people whose plans have been canceled, it could help them stand against Republican efforts to delay the individual mandate. But if congressional Democrats use this ruling as an excuse to delay or otherwise de-fang the individual mandate for anyone who doesn't want to pay for insurance under Obamacare, then it'll be a very big problem for the law.

The individual mandate no longer applies to people whose plans were canceled

So let me get this straight . People's plans were cancelled because their plans were 'bare bone' plans that did not offer the same coverage that the cr@p sandwich comprehensive Obamacare provides. Now that they find Obamacare UNAFFORDABLE ,they will be allowed to apply for a bare bone plan ? Tell me again why those plans had to be cancelled in the 1st place ?

[paraclete]

Incrediable, why didn't the ACA allow this coverage to everyone as the minimum and let the insurance companies sort out the otehr plans with thier cliems, Ismell a rat here somewhere

[speechlesstx]

Obamacare is just like Calvinball, they make up the rules as they go. The school children are in charge of the country.

[speechlesstx]

"Obamacare itself is the hardship."

You just can't make this stuff up.

[talaniman]

So now you holler about trying to help people having trouble with the transition? How many people are you talking about this time?

[tomder55]

Waiting for all those who defended the cancellations because they were inadequate 'bare bone' plans to defend this stunning reversal. Also waiting to hear them defend the emperor allowing exceptions for the purchase of what is technically ,an illegal plan under the rules of the ACA .

[talaniman]

The hardship clause was already in the law. If you read it you would know that.

[tomder55]

The hardship clause was already in the law. If you read it you would know that.

and evidently in the hands of the emperor ,it's as pliable as silly putty .

[tomder55]

it really cracks me up . The Dems shut down the government over the threat of repeal. So now ,piecemeal ,they intend to administratively dismantle it ;an effective repeal,hoping we don't notice.

[excon]

The Dems shut down the government over the threat of repeal.

Hello smoothy, I mean tom:

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

[talaniman]

The Dems shut down the government over the threat of repeal.

What Ex said,

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

[tomder55]

You know and I know that is exactly the scenario that the emperor and Reid constructed . It played out as they envisioned it would .They blame the Repubics,especially those radical TP . They get to keep Obamacare ,they use the shut down as a campaign issue in 2014 ;and the final icing on the cake is the end of sequester spending (thank you Bonehead and Ryan) .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

You know and I know that is exactly the scenario that the emperor and Reid constructed .

If you mean, did the Dems step out of the way while the righty's self destructed, I'd agree.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Shame the regime can't get out of their own way and quit d*cking around with our lives.

High security risk found after HealthCare.gov launch - CBS News

According to federal standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the potential impact of a high finding is “the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals.”

Details are not being made public for security reasons but Fryer testified that one vulnerability in the system was discovered during testing last week related to an incident reported in November. She says that as a result, the government has shut down functionality in the vulnerable part of the system. Fryer said the other high-risk finding was discovered Monday.

In another security bombshell, Fryer told congressional interviewers that she explicitly recommended denial of the website’s Authority to Operate (ATO), but was overruled by her superiors. The website was rolled out amid warnings Fryer said she gave both verbally and in a briefing that disclosed “high risks” and possible exposure to “attacks”.

Fryer also said that she refused to put her name on a letter recommending a temporary ATO be granted for six months while the issues were sorted out.

"My recommendation was a denial of ATO," Fryer told Democrats and Republicans who sat in on the day-long interview. According to Fryer, she first recommended denying the ATO to CMS chief information officer Tony Trenkle based on the many outstanding security concerns after pre-launch testing.

"I had discussions with him on this and told him that my evaluation of this was a high risk," Fryer told the committee. Trenkle retired from his CMS job on Nov. 13. He has not responded to CBS News interview requests.

This is the first time a government insider has gone on record challenging the administration's insistence that there were no worrisome security concerns. On Oct. 30, Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., asked Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in testimony to Congress whether "any senior department officials" advised delaying the rollout of HealthCare.gov.

"I can tell you that no senior official reporting to me ever advised me that we should delay," Sebelius answered. "We have testing that did not advise a delay. So not -- not to my knowledge."

It takes some kinda nerve to intentionally put the people they claim to be trying to help at such risk, and then lie about it.

[talaniman]

Looks like the ACA will have the same problems as Target.

[speechlesstx]

Target didn't put their website online with so many holes, someone made a sophisticated attack on their stores. The regime knowingly put up a website so full of holes you could drive a Hummer through it without regard to the security of American's personal information.

[talaniman]

You are correct about target, it seems it was limited to retailers in stores and not the website. My apology for the misinformation. But the ACA has not seen the type of theft at this time and as a side note,

Chinese Hackers Attacked FEC During Government Shutdown