Tag Archives: political parties

The Government’s Health Care Site

Posted on by
1

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is busily shilling HealthCare.gov as up and running smoothly—but please,

you may want to visit HealthCare.gov in off-peak hours when there is less traffic—mornings, evenings, or on weekends.

And,

Have your information ready when you log on, and comparison shop to get the best deal.

Because you still can’t get into ObamaMart—HealthCare.gov—to see actual plans and what they cover (over and above those contraceptives, prenatal and maternity care, pediatric and child’s dental care that every man or childless couple or empty nester need) without giving up “your information.”  And you still can’t get in to see actual premiums and deductibles that you’ll pay without giving up “your information.”  Never mind that amazon.com, Walmart, Barnes & Noble, or any other on-line or brick and mortar store do not require this as a condition to go in and poke their shelves.  This is your government speaking.

But wait—there’s more!

Critical parts of the back end still aren’t there.  The functions, for instance, needed to transfer to the insurer “your” subsidy aren’t built, so either you’ll still be paying full freight, or your insurer will be forced by the Obama administration to front you the money when you see the doctor the plan allows you to see or go to the hospital the plan allows you to visit.

There’s still no security, so “your information” is freely available to any hacker who wanders by and wants to poke around in your personal financial and health information.  Mike Rogers (R, MI) says

It still doesn’t function right…The security of this site…doesn’t meet the minimum standards of the private sector.

And “work was only just starting to address some of the identity-verification issues as well as enrollment data,” and “the administration hadn’t yet been able to guarantee accurate enrollment data was coming out of the site.”

And HHS delayed for a year the requirement that small businesses get Obamacare insurance policies through ObamaMart.  Even though the data the businesses enter on the paper forms they’re now “allowed” to use have to be entered manually, by ObamaMart workers through that same ObamaMart.

And the IRS—the same gang that’s busily trying to stifle political speech of those groups of whom Obama disapproves, the same gang that routinely reveals the confidential tax information of those disapproved groups, still is in charge of passing around all of the financial data included in “your information.”

And on.  And on.

On the NRSC’s Responsiveness to Its Donors

Posted on by
Reply

Two weeks ago, as I did with the NRCC Chairman, I sent a letter to Senator Jerry Moran (R, KS), Chairman of the National Republican Senate Campaign.

16 November 2013

8432 Mesa Verde
Plano, TX 75025
[email]

Re: NRSC Survey and Contribution Request, “Monday, 8:37 AM (~4 Nov 2013)

Senator Jerry Moran
Chairman
National Republican Senatorial Committee
320 First St, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Senator Moran,

I’ve received your letter requesting contributions to the NRSC, together with its enclosed survey, but I have concerns.

I had, also, received your earlier survey, identifiable to me by the document control number and my name and address on it.  In filling out this survey and sending in a $500 check, I added some comments to various of the questions.  Even though the NRSC cashed that check on 1 November—more than two weeks ago—I’ve yet to receive any response to those comments.

I’ve filled out—with comments—your enclosed leadership survey, but given the NRSC’s apparent reluctance to respond to concerns raised by your correspondents, why is it useful for me to send any more money to your organization?

I look forward to your early response, and thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Eric Hines

Moran, like Walden, has chosen not to respond.  Since the NRSC does not listen to its donors, either, but expects us, instead, simply to pony up like the NRCC’s Democrat ATM, I have to question to wisdom of sending our scarce and hard-earned dollars to this crowd, too.

What’s our alternative?  It’s the same: look hard at the Tea Party candidates in your area.  If that one fits, send your scarce and hard-earned dollars directly to that person’s campaign organization.

Remember, still, the Buckley Rule, and take it to heart: support the most conservative candidate available who’s actually electable.  It does us no good to vote for someone who cannot win, even if he fits our criteria to a T.  If that one isn’t electable, we just give the seat to a Democrat.  The establishment Republican candidate might have been a better choice than Todd Akin in Missouri, for instance, or than Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, or than Sharon Angle in Nevada.  Of course that’s harder to assess in real time than in hind sight: vet carefully.

On the NRCC’s Responsiveness to Its Donors

Posted on by
1

Two weeks ago, I sent the following letter to Congressman Greg Walden (R, OR), Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Campaign.

16 November 2013

8432 Mesa Verde
Plano, TX 75025
[email]

Re: NRCC Contribution Request, 5 Nov 2013

The Honorable Greg Walden
Chairman
National Republican Congressional Committee
320 First St, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Congressman Walden,

I’ve received your letter requesting contributions to the NRCC, but I have concerns.

I had, also, received your earlier survey, identifiable to me by the document control number and my name and address on it.  In filling out this survey and sending in a $500 check, I added some comments to various of the questions.  Even though the NRCC cashed that check on 31 October—more than two weeks ago—I’ve yet to receive any response to those comments.

Given the NRCC’s apparent reluctance to respond to concerns raised by your correspondents, why is it useful for me to send any more money to your organization?

I look forward to your early response, and thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Eric Hines

Walden has chosen not to respond.  Since the NRCC does not listen to its donors, but expects us, instead, simply to pony up like any Democrat ATM, I have to question to wisdom of sending our scarce and hard-earned dollars to this crowd.

What’s our alternative?  Look hard at the Tea Party candidates in your area.  If that one fits, send your scarce and hard-earned dollars directly to that person’s campaign organization.

Remember the Buckley Rule, though, and take it to heart: support the most conservative candidate available who’s actually electable.  It does us no good to vote for someone who cannot win, even if he fits our criteria to a T.  If that one isn’t electable, we just give the seat to a Democrat.  The establishment Republican candidate might have been a better choice than Todd Akin in Missouri, for instance, or than Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, or than Sharon Angle in Nevada.  Of course that’s harder to assess in real time than in hind sight: vet carefully.

How Does This Work?

Posted on by
Reply

The CMS has a Request for Proposal out [emphasis added]:

Solicitation Number: RFP-CMS-RMADA-2014
Notice Type: Modification/Amendment
Synopsis: Added: Nov 20, 2013 1:17 pm

The purpose is to develop a Research, Measurement, Assessment, Design, and Analysis (RMADA) IDIQ [Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contracting/procurement type] to respond to expanded needs of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care ACT (ACA) and Health Care reform ACT (HCERA).  The work awarded under the RMADA will involve the design, implementation and evaluation of a broad range of research and/or payment and service delivery models to test their potential for reducing expenditures for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and uninsured beneficiaries while maintaining or improving quality of care.

Section C of this RFP has this expansion [emphasis added]:

…the [CMS] will award task orders (TOs) for a wide range of analytic support and technical assistance activities that support models and demonstration programs created or derived under the auspices of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA), and future health reform legislation where new delivery and payment reform models are enacted.  The demands of new reforms created under ACA have redefined the way CMS approaches and conducts research activities and demonstrations affecting Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and uninsured populations.  The role of state and private sector payers is also redefined as many of the new models include multiple payers working in collaboration with CMS to reform the care delivery system.  The RMADA will provide CMS with a robust tool to meet those challenges.  Some of the major activities this umbrella contract will address include the following: designing, maintaining and refining model/demonstration design and operations; monitoring model site implementations; designing and carrying out surveys and other data collection activities; obtaining and analyzing secondary data sources including Medicare, Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and private payer sources that support model design and evaluations.  Some other evaluation activities envisioned under the RMADA include reporting on formative and summative analyses, providing rapid cycle quarterly evaluation feedback to all model participants and CMS, and the creation of summative annual and final program findings.

Aside from only just figuring out that “The demands of new reforms created under ACA have redefined the way CMS approaches and conducts research activities and demonstrations affecting Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and uninsured populations” and “The role of state and private sector payers is also redefined…,” they’ve also just discovered HHS, or its CMS ObamaMart Project “Integrator,” hadn’t thought about doing these things from the jump.

As a result, now they want to spend an additional $7 billion of our money on their failure.  Probably, it’s too much to hope for any of these billions being committed to saving pennies will be committed to reducing the costs of all that added reporting and paperwork.  Or even that the entire $7 billion could be saved (and sent over to Treasury to reduce our national debt) with withdrawing this foolish RFP.