Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Others might not be familiar with the Theory of Irrational Outcomes. Essentially this holds that two influences can cancel each other. So, if a website is really bad then you need a really incompetent team to fix it.

I wouldn't recommend IT as a career choice if you really believe this.

If I had been living in a cave in Tibet then perhaps not. Backers spent $70 million building the Boo.com website software and it was nearly non-functional when it launched in 1999. Microsoft Live! Search was also nearly non-functional in 2008. Just in 2011 alone, there were spectacular crashes at the London Olympic ticket site, Target, Apple Store, Bank of America, and the Disney Store.

There may be a handful. (Cuil.com comes to mind)
I wouldn't consider the crashes you mentioned as indicating that any of those sites are as badly designed as healthcare.gov

Actually, this is what we call repetition. And, oddly enough, the number of repetitions is completely independent of the chances of its being accurate.

Of course not. The statement is accurate based on reasoning and the facts. A site that is so poorly designed and/ or implemented is not very likely to be secure. Do you disagree with this statement?

 

[balrog666]

Don't congressional staffers already have employee health insurance policies? Why would they need to use the exchanges?

Because it's in the law.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

You left out any links, which makes me wonder if Drudge is simply lying again.

Here you go:
http://drudgereport.com/

Glad to help.

 

[theprestige]

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.

One way that website security risks are similar to fire risks is that it's possible to assess risk and avoid risky behaviors without having to wait for a given risk to become an actual problem.

One way that website security risks are different from fire risks is that it's possible for a given risk to become an actual problem without anybody noticing.

But that's OK. I get it. You know that the site has an impressive number of technical problems, but you're convinced that there aren't any security problems, because you can't see any, and nobody has told you about any. Presumably if someone had compromised the backend systems in some way, your browser would display little flames around the borders of the healthcare.gov window, right?

 

[Unabogie]

Here you go:
http://drudgereport.com/

Glad to help.

Non-Drudge link? With a small quote to understand what your claim is?

 

[Kestrel]

One way that website security risks are similar to fire risks is that it's possible to assess risk and avoid risky behaviors without having to wait for a given risk to become an actual problem.

One way that website security risks are different from fire risks is that it's possible for a given risk to become an actual problem without anybody noticing.

But that's OK. I get it. You know that the site has an impressive number of technical problems, but you're convinced that there aren't any security problems, because you can't see any, and nobody has told you about any. Presumably if someone had compromised the backend systems in some way, your browser would display little flames around the borders of the healthcare.gov window, right?

You believe that the site can be easily hacked despite the lack of any evidence that it has been hacked. And when challenged, you resort to argument by insult.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Non-Drudge link? With a small quote to understand what your claim is?

You've got to click on the giant letters saying "DIRTY HARRY EXEMPTS STAFF FROM OBAMACARE", then you'll end up here.

I haven't made any claims, other than the claim that Drudge Report could be reached by clicking on http://drudgereport.com

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

You believe that the site can be easily hacked despite the lack of any evidence that it has been hacked.

Sort of like believing a pile of kindling can easily catch on fire, even when it's not currently engulfed in flames!

 

[Newtons Bit]

You believe that the site can be easily hacked despite the lack of any evidence that it has been hacked. And when challenged, you resort to argument by insult.

Uh, what? How does one prove it has been hacked? If it has been hacked, the hackers aren't likely to go on the news and say "here I am!". If it has been hacked, and the development team or the White House knows about it, do you think they will tell us immediately?

On the other hand, there have been plenty of news articles posted by people who actually are experts, who have discovered actual security flaws. A security flaw doesn't necessarily mean "hacked". The biggest problems so far have to do with the website providing information to randomly guessed usernames that could allow unscrupulous individuals enough of a starting point to correctly investigate and discover security question answers. These particular problems were identified a month ago and have yet to be resolved.

 

[Neally]

A special rule in the ACA requires Members of Congress and their staff to choose their health insurance plan from the exchange.

But that hasn't stopped right wingers from repeating the lie that Congress is exempt from the ACA.

"The law lets lawmakers decide if their committee and leadership staffers hold on to their federal employee insurance plans. "

So yeah, Congress can opt out and thus in that sense be exempt.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/reid-obamacare-staff/index.html

 

[DDWW]

You left out any links, which makes me wonder if Drudge CNN is simply lying again.

FIFY

DD (you're welcome!) WW

 

[DDWW]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/04/obama-harvard-poll-millenials/3868629/

"Although Millennials have held firm in their approval of the president in past polls, we are now seeing a sea change among this critical demographic," said Trey Grayson, director of Harvard Institute of Politics.

Among the 18- to 29-year-olds currently without health insurance, less than a third say they're likely to enroll in the exchange. Thirteen percent say they will definitely enroll, 16% say they will probably enroll, and 41% say they are split 50-50 on whether they will enroll, according to the poll."

Can Obamacare work without the Millennials?

 

[DDWW]

And it just keeps getting better and better.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/harv...abandon-obamacare-would-vote-to-recall-obama/

"52 percent of younger millennials, aged 18-24, told Harvard pollsters that they would support a recalling of the president from the Oval Office. 47 percent of all young voters said they would support such a measure. Fortunately for the president, no provision to recall the President of the United States exists in the Constitution."

Lucky for us Harvard, being such a right wing entity, these results can be ignored.

DDWW

 

[remirol]

Both your links pull data from the same survey.

And it just keeps getting better and better.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/harv...abandon-obamacare-would-vote-to-recall-obama/

From the survey:

57. Do you have health insurance?
Yes, my employer provides it ........................ 27%
Yes, I am under 26 and covered by parents .. 35%
Yes, I have an individual or family plan ........ 12%
No, I am not enrolled in health insurance ...... 22%
Refused .......................................................... 4%

Methodology used to derive conclusion fails. 62% of those surveyed have no _need_ to enroll in the exchanges because they are covered otherwise, and that 12% is a little vague because of the inclusion of "family plan". Let's leave it out for now and assume the 'refused' actually need health insurance. That gives us 38% who don't currently have insurance and thus would consider using the exchange or going without insurance. Let's assume that the below ratios hold even across the board, even though it should immediately be obvious that a big chunk of the "unlikely to enroll" answers came from the 62%.

A. The Affordable Care Act.
(n=1,042)
NET: Likely to Enroll .................................. 20%
50-50 .............................................................. 28%
NET: Unlikely to Enroll ............................... 47%
...
B. Obamacare
(n=1,047)
NET: Likely to Enroll .................................. 22%
50-50 .............................................................. 29%
NET: Unlikely to Enroll .............................. 45%

Roughly the same, though not surprising that "Obamacare" actually gets a bump amongst this generation. Using the 'worst' # for each category:

Likely: 20% of 38% is 7%, rounding down.
Unlikely: 47% of 38% is 18%, rounding up.
Split the difference for the 50-50s: 14.5% of 38% is 5.5%, truncating.

So... 23.5% of surveyed Millenials both don't currently have health insurance and are "unlikely" to enroll in the exchanges. That seems about right; kids always think they're bulletproof. I'm not sure what the big revelation is supposed to be here.

 

[Kestrel]

Uh, what? How does one prove it has been hacked? If it has been hacked, the hackers aren't likely to go on the news and say "here I am!". If it has been hacked, and the development team or the White House knows about it, do you think they will tell us immediately?

On the other hand, there have been plenty of news articles posted by people who actually are experts, who have discovered actual security flaws. A security flaw doesn't necessarily mean "hacked". The biggest problems so far have to do with the website providing information to randomly guessed usernames that could allow unscrupulous individuals enough of a starting point to correctly investigate and discover security question answers. These particular problems were identified a month ago and have yet to be resolved.

So if I randomly guess a username, I can do social engineering and guess at security questions. Assuming that I already have hacked that persons email account, I can reset the password and intercept the password reset message and log into their account at Healthcare.gov. At which point I can look at the same information that is easily found through social engineering or in public records. (Names, addresses and birth dates). Healthcare.gov may know the Social Security Numbers of enrollees, but it doesn't display the full numbers back to users.

 

[Morrigan]

Uh, what? How does one prove it has been hacked? If it has been hacked, the hackers aren't likely to go on the news and say "here I am!".

On the contrary, they'd surely gloat about it and sell the data on the black market.

 

[balrog666]

On the contrary, they'd surely gloat about it and sell the data on the black market.

First you sell it. Then you gloat. In private. So you can keep milking it for all it is worth.

 

[MattusMaximus]

When the problem is with the website, you fix the website, you don't repeal the law. The law has far too many positives to even consider repeal at this point; why do you think the Congressional Republicans went into hysterics in October and embarrassed themselves nationally by making threats they didn't have the balls to follow through on?

This ^

Not to mention, the chances of repealing the ACA are less than that of a snowball's chance in hell until January 2017 when President Obama leaves office because of his veto power, and that's assuming the Republicans win the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress in 2016. And by that time the ACA will be firmly entrenched, so going after it with the plan to repeal it will be akin to committing political suicide.

All the noise coming from the GOP on this stuff is little more than a long, slow death rattle.

 

[Neally]

Not to mention, the chances of repealing the ACA are less than that of a snowball's chance in hell until January 2017 when President Obama leaves office because of his veto power, and that's assuming the Republicans win the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress in 2016. And by that time the ACA will be firmly entrenched, so going after it with the plan to repeal it will be akin to committing political suicide.

Exactly. Once people get free stuff, it's no longer just a benefit. It's an entitlement. A right! Don't dare try to take away someones rights.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Exactly. Once people get free stuff, it's no longer just a benefit. It's an entitlement. A right! Don't dare try to take away someones rights.

Ayn Rand's tears are dear to me