Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[Robrob]

Er, uh, yeah, I'll get back to you with the CPU cache register contents asap, mmmkay?

Man, this Obama guy's got you all crazy. You may want to take a break from the forums.

Dodge noted.

 

[MattusMaximus]

How many of those are under 30 .AND. without a pre-existing medical condition?

Keep moving those goalposts

ETA: Remember, the really important number is how many people have signed up for private coverage by the end of next March. If the recent numbers (updated to 240,000+ in November) are any indication, the rate at which people are signing up will increase. I wouldn't be surprised if we see 500,000+ sign up in December.

 

[Virus]

Keep moving those goalposts

ETA: Remember, the really important number is how many people have signed up for private coverage by the end of next March. If the recent numbers (updated to 240,000+ in November) are any indication, the rate at which people are signing up will increase. I wouldn't be surprised if we see 500,000+ sign up in December.

No, the important number is how many sign up by March that are young, healthy, low risk and have enough disposable income to subsidize those who aren't.

In the real world stuff costs money.

 

[Morrigan]

sir-drinks-a-lot has a point; considering the sheer incompetence of the dev work done on the site, I would certainly be uneasy in entering private information, because I have no reason to believe the security framework wouldn't be equally bad.

That said, insisting that it is non-secure as if it were solidly proven is foolishness, and calling those that merely ask for actual evidence (instead of inferences) "Obama sycophants" is nothing short of asinine.

 

[Newtons Bit]

sir-drinks-a-lot has a point; considering the sheer incompetence of the dev work done on the site, I would certainly be uneasy in entering private information, because I have no reason to believe the security framework wouldn't be equally bad.

That said, insisting that it is non-secure as if it were solidly proven is foolishness, and calling those that merely ask for actual evidence (instead of inferences) "Obama sycophants" is nothing short of asinine.

The actual evidence has already been provided in this thread. But here's more links:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/29/technology/obamacare-security/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/20/us-usa-healthcare-security-idUSBRE9AI0NR20131120

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2066...macare-site-could-sacrifice-private-info.html

 

[Puppycow]

Here's a rare bit of good news about the ACA:

Cost of Health Care Law Is Seen as Decreasing

WASHINGTON — The rollout of President Obama’s health care law may have deeply disappointed its supporters, but on at least one front, the Affordable Care Act is beating expectations: its cost.

Over the next few years, the government is expected to spend billions of dollars less than originally projected on the law, analysts said, with both the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies for private insurance plans ending up less expensive than anticipated.

Economists broadly agree that the sluggish economy remains the main reason that health spending has grown so slowly for the last half-decade. From 2007 to 2010, per-capita health care spending rose just 1.8 percent annually. Since then, the annual increase has slowed even further, to 1.3 percent. A decade ago, spending was growing at roughly 5 percent a year.

But even though the Affordable Care Act might be more a beneficiary of changes in health care spending than the primary driver of them, the law’s provisions to control costs could prove increasingly important as the economy improves, demand for health care increases and spending picks back up.

 

[Puppycow]

The actual evidence has already been provided in this thread. But here's more links:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/29/technology/obamacare-security/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/20/us-usa-healthcare-security-idUSBRE9AI0NR20131120

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2066...macare-site-could-sacrifice-private-info.html

Those aren't regurgitated from WND.

 

[eeyore1954]

The actual evidence has already been provided in this thread. But here's more links:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/29/technology/obamacare-security/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/20/us-usa-healthcare-security-idUSBRE9AI0NR20131120

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2066...macare-site-could-sacrifice-private-info.html

From the second article. The today in the question was the end of Oct. I would hope the situation has improved since then but it was released in poor shape how sure can you be today. Especially with things that are not readily apparent such as security.

Do any of you think today that the site is secure?"

The answer from the experts, which included two academics and two private sector technical researchers, was a unanimous "no."

"Would you recommend today that this site be shut down until it is?" asked Collins, whose party is opposed to Obamacare and has sought to capitalize on the failures of the website since it opened for enrollment on October 1.

Three of the experts said "yes," while a fourth said he did not have enough information to make the call.

 

[Kestrel]

It really is easy to get a security expert to claim something isn't secure. And then suggest that they be hired to oversee fixing the security.

I would be much more impressed if David Kennedy had managed to hack Healthcare.gov and access private information. But what he mostly did was collect anecdotes from the web and talk in generalities about security.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Those aren't regurgitated from WND.

I.. errr.... what?

 

[eeyore1954]

It really is easy to get a security expert to claim something isn't secure. And then suggest that they be hired to oversee fixing the security.

I would be much more impressed if David Kennedy had managed to hack Healthcare.gov and access private information. But what he mostly did was collect anecdotes from the web and talk in generalities about security.

It is also easy to disregard expert testimony.

 

[theprestige]

So you don't have any proof either. In your ten years of productions operations, you haven't seemed to learn that bugs != design flaws or security holes. I hope if your team finds bugs, you don't order them to rewrite the entire application because SECURITY. So I'll give your expert opinion the value its worth.

Design flaws result in buggy behavior and bad security. A large number of bugs implies a flawed design, or a flawed development process.

If your application has a lot of bugs, it is a bad application. This is true regardless of whether the bugs arise from a flawed development process, or a flawed design, or both. If your process produces bad applications, it is a bad process. A bad process does not produce good security.

If my team were to find a bad application with lots of bugs not related to security, we would expect to find lots of bugs related to security as well. In practice, we find that this expectation is met in such cases. We would also review our process to identify and correct the flaws that resulted in us producing such a bad application.

I've been on teams that have rewritten entire apps because of the amount of security and non-security flaws. I have also been on teams that have rewritten their entire development process because of the amount of bad apps the existing process was producing.

It's my perception that the healthcare.gov site was produced using bad processes. I take it as axiomatic that a bad process cannot produce good security.

 

[Unabogie]

Design flaws result in buggy behavior and bad security. A large number of bugs implies a flawed design, or a flawed development process.

If your application has a lot of bugs, it is a bad application. This is true regardless of whether the bugs arise from a flawed development process, or a flawed design, or both. If your process produces bad applications, it is a bad process. A bad process does not produce good security.

If my team were to find a bad application with lots of bugs not related to security, we would expect to find lots of bugs related to security as well. In practice, we find that this expectation is met in such cases. We would also review our process to identify and correct the flaws that resulted in us producing such a bad application.

I've been on teams that have rewritten entire apps because of the amount of security and non-security flaws. I have also been on teams that have rewritten their entire development process because of the amount of bad apps the existing process was producing.

It's my perception that the healthcare.gov site was produced using bad processes. I take it as axiomatic that a bad process cannot produce good security.

So you have supposition and not evidence. Your supposition may be well founded or it may not be, but absent any actual evidence it's still just a guess.

Which is exactly what I called out Drinks-a-lot on.

 

[theprestige]

So you have supposition and not evidence. Your supposition may be well founded or it may not be, but absent any actual evidence it's still just a guess.

Which is exactly what I called out Drinks-a-lot on.

I'd say that given the evidence of a bad process, the only reasonable supposition is that the site is not secure, and you should not entrust it with your personal information.

 

[plague311]

I'd say that given the evidence of a bad process, the only reasonable supposition is that the site is not secure, and you should not entrust it with your personal information.

Yet I have done exactly that without any issue at all. So I have at least one documented example of having no fear of putting my information on the site. We actually have no idea if the security on the backend wasn't the first thing the team that "took over" fixed first. It could be top notch. Are there any documented instances of hackers getting into the .gov site? I saw a post with a bunch of attempts, did someone actually hack it?

 

[theprestige]

Yet I have done exactly that without any issue at all. So I have at least one documented example of having no fear of putting my information on the site.

I'm sure this must have sounded much more awesome in your head.

We actually have no idea if the security on the backend wasn't the first thing the team that "took over" fixed first. It could be top notch.

Yes, of course. Faced with a PR disaster of epic proportions, the team immediately mobilized all its resources to fix hidden problems that have no obvious impact.

 

[plague311]

I'm sure this must have sounded much more awesome in your head.

I didn't need it to sound awesome or not. It's an undebatable fact, one that cannot be contested. Do you have any specific instances of hacking taking place? Anything? Good, stick to your one liner quips, they totally make you look cool.

Yes, of course. Faced with a PR disaster of epic proportions, the team immediately mobilized all its resources to fix hidden problems that have no obvious impact.

Stating more things without backing them up doesn't make them factual. You have absolutely no idea what they did or didn't do, which was exactly my point.

Like I said, stick to the one liners, they really work for you.

ETA: Of course by "hidden" and "have no obvious impact" you mean that people aren't talking about them, but then again, we're talking about them. So it's not really hidden and you're trying ot use the security as a reason to NOT sign up at the site, which means it would impact people not to sign up.

 

[theprestige]

I didn't need it to sound awesome or not. It's an undebatable fact, one that cannot be contested.

I am in no way contesting the fact that you believe the site is safe, and that you have acted in accordance with that belief.

On the other hand, I don't really see how your belief is relevant to the question of whether or not the site is actually safe.

Do you have any specific instances of hacking taking place? Anything? Good, stick to your one liner quips, they totally make you look cool.

It's not a fire risk until it's actually on fire. It's not a safety risk until someone actually falls to their death. It's not a health risk until someone actually gets food poisoning. It's not a security risk until it actually gets hacked.

I don't need a bullet in my gut to tell me that firearms are risky.

 

[plague311]

I am in no way contesting the fact that you believe the site is safe, and that you have acted in accordance with that belief.

On the other hand, I don't really see how your belief is relevant to the question of whether or not the site is actually safe.


It's not a fire risk until it's actually on fire. It's not a safety risk until someone actually falls to their death. It's not a health risk until someone actually gets food poisoning. It's not a security risk until it actually gets hacked.

I don't need a bullet in my gut to tell me that firearms are risky.

Looks like a really long way of saying you're long on claims but short on evidence. The strawman at the end was really awesome as well. Then you finish it off by contradicting everything you said. It's not this until it's this, it's not that until it's that, but you don't need a bullet in your gut to know firearms are risky? What does that even mean?

Do you have anything factual to say that the website is a risk? Anything at all? That's the bottom line here. You can save your laughable "rules of thumb" and just answer the question. If not, just admit it.

 

[Kestrel]

People have been attempting to set fire to Healthcare.gov since Oct. 1. The fact that nobody has managed to do so is a good sign that security isn't as poor as many are claiming.