Jump to content

The Singing Begins


Proud Tiger

Recommended Posts





Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says the timeline for the ObamaCare rollout was "flat-out wrong" and that the federal exchange could have used “more time and testing” before going online.

Sebelius, who led the agency through the problem-plagued rollout, made her comments in an interview that aired Sunday on “NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the first interview since she announced her resignation Thursday.

"Clearly, the estimate that it was ready to go Oct. 1 was just flat-out wrong," she said Sunday.

Sebelius also said the roughly first eight weeks of the glitch-filled rollout was the low point of her five years as secretary.

Still, she defended the President Obama's signature law, arguing millions of Americans now have access to health care because of it.

"People have competitive choices and real information for the first time ever in this insurance market," Sebelius said.

The federal site, HealthCare.gov, was supposed to be the primary place for people to buy private insurance under the 2010 health care law. But its first several weeks were an embarrassment for the administration and its allies.

“I think there's no question -- and I've said this many times -- that the launch of the website was terribly flawed and terribly difficult," Sebelius said.

She also said the president setting a Dec. 1 deadline to have the website repaired was a nerve-racking experience.

"Having failed once at the front of October, the first of December became a critical juncture," Sebelius said. "That was a pretty scary date."

Her resignation comes just a week after sign-ups for insurance coverage ended, enrolling 7.1 million people and exceeding initial expectations. Enrollment has since increased to 7.5 million as people were given extra time to complete applications.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/14/sebelius-says-timeline-for-obamacare-rollout-flat-out-wrong/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a paid liar, so what she says now is of little worth. She said success would be 7+ million for the initial sign up, but then came back and claimed she NEVER said that. I don't care if she was put in a no win situation, she scoffed at the notion that she worked for the American public, and insisted that criticisms of her job were essentially meaningless, as she didn't work for the little people.

The damage is done, folks. Best we can possibly do now is try to make it worse, so even the hard core Dems will be forced to act to repeal. Other than that, we're stuck w/ this law. The GOP sure as hell aren't going to do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was becoming more and more and an embarrassment to this administration. She messed up her personal income taxes, but that is normal for Obama appointees. See could not answer simple questions when before congress or gave strange answers. Had hatch act violations. Sat silent during live TV interviews. At her last speech at the White House, she lost a page of her speech, and then just skipped ahead..... She's a great blame target.

And the good news for her is that she will not have to use Obamacare. She's not eligible. She's 65 years old and will be on Medicare.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sebelius aimed at 47M found 7.1 and cost others their own insurance.

I cannot see history being kind to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is this administration's Michael Brown.

Did Michael Brown lie to American citizens?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auctoritas that's a minor adjustment within the noise level of their accuracy. I hope for the sake of the insured they are right but wait until the ins. companies release their 2015 rates reflecting the lower number of young people that signed up come out. That's when the crap hits the fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is this administration's Michael Brown.

This administration has a whole lot of them, then.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a paid liar, so what she says now is of little worth. She said success would be 7+ million for the initial sign up, but then came back and claimed she NEVER said that. I don't care if she was put in a no win situation, she scoffed at the notion that she worked for the American public, and insisted that criticisms of her job were essentially meaningless, as she didn't work for the little people.

The damage is done, folks. Best we can possibly do now is try to make it worse, so even the hard core Dems will be forced to act to repeal. Other than that, we're stuck w/ this law. The GOP sure as hell aren't going to do anything about it.

The Dems want it to fail so they can crow about single payer replacing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is this administration's Michael Brown.

Did Michael Brown lie to American citizens?

"Michael Brown, the former Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), resigned after his mishandling of the response to Hurricane Katrina. To get the job in the first place, Brown claimed he’d overseen emergency services for the City of Edmund, Oklahoma and that he’d worked at the University of Central Oklahoma as a professor, but neither of these were true."

http://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/4-famous-resume-lies-and-their-lessons/

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1103003,00.html

There was also this gem: Brown: "We've provided food to the people at the Convention Center so that they've gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day" On the Sept. 2 broadcast of NBC's Today, FEMA director Brown told host Katie Couric, "We've provided food to the people at the [New Orleans' Morial] Convention Center so that they've gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day." Couric did not challenge this statement. But on Sept. 1, NBC News photojournalist Tony Zumbado reported on MSNBC Live: ZUMBADO: I can't put it into words the amount of destruction that is in this city and how these people are coping. They are just left behind. There is nothing offered to them. No water, no ice, no C-rations, nothing, for the last four days. They were told to go to the convention center. They did, they've been behaving. It's unbelievable how organized they are, how supportive they are of each other. They have not started any melees, any riots. They just want food and support. And what I saw there I've never seen in this country. We need to really look at this situation at the convention center. It's getting very, very crazy in there and very dangerous. Somebody needs to come down with a lot of food and a lot of water. http://www.rense.com/general67/katlies.htm

So...yeah. And unless you want to seem really callous, I'd caution against saying that 1,833 dead Americans, enormous amounts of displaced people, and several hundred BILLION DOLLARS of immediate economic impact compares to 2 months of a website not working like it was supposed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auctoritas that's a minor adjustment within the noise level of their accuracy. I hope for the sake of the insured they are right but wait until the ins. companies release their 2015 rates reflecting the lower number of young people that signed up come out. That's when the crap hits the fan.

I know, I was just poop-stirring. :) I couldn't resist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a paid liar, so what she says now is of little worth. She said success would be 7+ million for the initial sign up, but then came back and claimed she NEVER said that. I don't care if she was put in a no win situation, she scoffed at the notion that she worked for the American public, and insisted that criticisms of her job were essentially meaningless, as she didn't work for the little people.

The damage is done, folks. Best we can possibly do now is try to make it worse, so even the hard core Dems will be forced to act to repeal. Other than that, we're stuck w/ this law. The GOP sure as hell aren't going to do anything about it.

The Dems want it to fail so they can crow about single payer replacing it.

Just hope the Repubs have a response.

"We ain't never going back" (as the DBTs would put it). ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auctoritas that's a minor adjustment within the noise level of their accuracy. I hope for the sake of the insured they are right but wait until the ins. companies release their 2015 rates reflecting the lower number of young people that signed up come out. That's when the crap hits the fan.

At what cost in lost services does that saving come at? The jury is out but there is some debate about the actual quality of care that can be reasonably expected going forward. I am not optimistic that, within the context of O-Care, healthcare services will be as good as they have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auctoritas that's a minor adjustment within the noise level of their accuracy. I hope for the sake of the insured they are right but wait until the ins. companies release their 2015 rates reflecting the lower number of young people that signed up come out. That's when the crap hits the fan.

At what cost in lost services does that saving come at? The jury is out but there is some debate about the actual quality of care that can be reasonably expected going forward. I am not optimistic that, within the context of O-Care, healthcare services will be as good as they have been.

It's a legitimate concern, but my personal opinion is that worst-case we end up with exactly what we had (at least on balance). What, in particular, draws that concern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auctoritas that's a minor adjustment within the noise level of their accuracy. I hope for the sake of the insured they are right but wait until the ins. companies release their 2015 rates reflecting the lower number of young people that signed up come out. That's when the crap hits the fan.

At what cost in lost services does that saving come at? The jury is out but there is some debate about the actual quality of care that can be reasonably expected going forward. I am not optimistic that, within the context of O-Care, healthcare services will be as good as they have been.

It's a legitimate concern, but my personal opinion is that worst-case we end up with exactly what we had (at least on balance). What, in particular, draws that concern?

Economic common sense. I may or may not be proven wrong but quality of services can almost always be correlated to the costs vs benefits. The primary beneficiaries of O-Care are the insurance, technology and pharmaceutical companies but not the physicians. Healthcare services are ultimately delivered to a patient via an attending physician. O-Care is not set up to their benefit. So, if you simply follow the money, I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more physicians retire early or simply opt out creating smaller networks of care. For me, I have a hard time visualizing care being as good with fewer physicians seeing more patients.

http://www.forbes.co...for-physicians/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auctoritas that's a minor adjustment within the noise level of their accuracy. I hope for the sake of the insured they are right but wait until the ins. companies release their 2015 rates reflecting the lower number of young people that signed up come out. That's when the crap hits the fan.

At what cost in lost services does that saving come at? The jury is out but there is some debate about the actual quality of care that can be reasonably expected going forward. I am not optimistic that, within the context of O-Care, healthcare services will be as good as they have been.

It's a legitimate concern, but my personal opinion is that worst-case we end up with exactly what we had (at least on balance). What, in particular, draws that concern?

What we had was very fixable with the right people in play. What we have now is a cancer with which we have no alternative but to remove and start over. I don't expect that to happen, but this law is a nightmare and tramples on the very freedoms people like myself have fought so hard to protect at one point in our lifetime. Pigeonholing people into forced purchase of a product based on selective availability is an outright travesty...regardless of what Justice Roberts feels. Of course he changed the argument of the defendants and used his power to conform the law with his own pen but that's the obvious part of the case in point.

I could have created a much better system using less money and keeping the government from becoming so powerful in the process. Now we have student loans owned by the government, healthcare plans owned by the government through the IRS and the DHHS, and an incremental destruction of the liberties we have all in the name of progressive reconstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sebelius thinks she so good that she can be a senator.

A 65 year old failed cabinet secretary replacing a 77 year old as senator? Kansas can do much much better

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/us/politics/kathleen-sebelius.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus&_r=0

WASHINGTON — In her darkest hour last fall, Kathleen Sebelius suffered one of the deepest cuts from an old family friend who accused her of “gross incompetence” over the rollout of the Affordable Care Act and demanded that she resign as secretary of health and human services. Now she is weighing revenge.

Ms. Sebelius is considering entreaties from Democrats who want her to run against that old friend, Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas.

Several Democrats said this week that Ms. Sebelius had been mentioned with growing frequency as someone who could wage a serious challenge to Mr. Roberts, 77, who is running for a fourth term and is considered vulnerable. One person who spoke directly to Ms. Sebelius said that she was thinking about it, but added that it was too soon to say how seriously she was taking the idea.

It was only last week, after all, that Ms. Sebelius, 65, said that she would step down from her cabinet job.

Even if Ms. Sebelius had not presided over the Department of Health and Human Services at a time of turmoil and self-inflicted distress — and while carrying out a law that inspires such anger on the right — her candidacy would be a tough sell in Kansas. Democrats have not held a Senate seat in the state since 1939. And even before the president’s popularity started to take a steep slide last year, he fared especially poorly in Kansas, winning only 38 percent of the vote there in 2012.

Democrats say that Ms. Sebelius would be their best hope at winning in a tough state, especially if Mr. Roberts loses his primary to Milton Wolf, a Tea Party-backed radiologist who has alarmed mainstream Republicans with some of his actions, such as when he posted gruesome pictures of gunshot victims on Facebook.

Perhaps more significant, Ms. Sebelius would force Republicans to spend money in Kansas as they tried to fight off her challenge. Her family has a long history in the state, and she was a popular, twice-elected governor. In 2006, she was re-elected with 58 percent of the vote.

But friends and Democrats who know her said that they seriously doubted she would follow through and mount a campaign, considering how personally difficult the past six or seven months had been. She has been mocked and excoriated by Republicans on Capitol Hill, who made her the face of the Affordable Care Act’s problems. And she has told people that she anticipated staying on in her job as secretary for a while longer. President Obama has already nominated a successor, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the current director of the Office of Management and Budget, but her appointment must be approved by the Senate.

Ms. Sebelius would have until June 2 to decide, the deadline for filing for the Senate primary in Kansas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7.5 million is the BIGGEST LIE of all....not even half .......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is now surfacing that one of the main reasons for the downward revision in the CBO's projected cost estimates is that allowed payments to doctors and hospitals are reduced.

But to the warped mind's of ultra liberals, that translates into better medical care. Just ask Nancy Pelosi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...