Payment feature for healthcare.gov still hasn't been built

[clacy]

You can't make this stuff up.  I'm actually surprised at the government's incompetence in this project, and that's coming from someone that generally has VERY LOW EXPECTATIONS of government competency.... 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101211556

A crucial system for making payments to insurers from the federal Obamacare marketplace, HealthCare.gov, has yet to be built, a senior government IT official admitted Tuesday.

The official, Henry Chao, visibly stunned Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) when he said under questioning that a significant fraction of that online insurance marketplace has yet to be constructed.

(Read more: Low-bamacare enrollment)

"We still need to build the payments system to make the payments [to insurance companies] in January," Chao said during testimony. That so-called financial management tool was originally supposed to be part of HealthCare.gov when it launched Oct. 1, but officials later suspended its launch as part of their effort to get the consumer interface part of the site ready.

Chao on Tuesday said other areas that need to be built include "the back-office systems, the accounting systems."

Overall, Chao said, about 30 percent to 40 percent of the federal Obamacare marketplace has yet to be developed.

Chao is deputy chief information officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that operates HealthCare.gov.

Chao said the consumer part of that website, which enrolls people in Obamacare insurance plans, is totally built.

(Read more: Obamacare IT Chao warned of 'plane crash' for HealthCare.gov)

"The online application, verification, documentation, plan compare, generating enrollment, that's 100 percent," Chao said.

But the revelation startled some observers. "That's like setting up an online bank without setting up a way to make deposits," an industry source told CNBC.

"The parts of the marketplace that were essential for consumers to be able to apply for eligibility and select a plan were live on Oct. 1," said Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for HHS. "The additional functionality that has not been launched has to do with pieces that are not needed until 2014."

HealthCare.gov is comprised of "distinct pieces of functionality that, together, make up the full integrated system—plan management, eligibility and enrollment and financial management," Peters continued.

"As we have said, CMS prioritized essential functionality to be live on Oct. 1 to ensure that consumers would be able to apply for eligibility and select a plan. Other functionality will come online over time. This is a complex project with a short timeline—and as such issues were prioritized to meet the Oct. 1 launch date. As part of this prioritization, back-end tools, including financial management, monthly enrollment reconciliation and risk adjustment, which are not consumer facing and not essential until 2014 will be rolled out in the coming months."

The financial management tool manages the payment processing between marketplaces and issuers. Monthly enrollment reconciliation refers to the tool that makes sure there is agreement between the enrollment numbers maintained by HealthCare.gov and the same numbers maintained by the insurers. And the risk adjustment program gives monetary payments to insurers that disproportionately attract people with chronic conditions, and others whose uses of insurance could end up costing insurers more money than they take in in premiums.

Chao and other Obama administration officials have been lambasted since Oct. 1 for the glitch-laden launch of HealthCare.gov, which with just 27,000 people enrolled in 36 states over one month has grossly underperformed original expectations. The administration had originally estimated that 7 million people would enroll in Obamacare insurance plans by March 31, but that goal remains in peril.

[annieB]

So,are we on the hook for the unpaid premiums ?
Oh my...

[Kshartle]

Do you mean the taxpayer annieB?

Sadly, we are on the hook for all the government promises/debts. 

[ns2]

Charles Krauthammer is saying that Obamacare may turn out to be the swan song for modern liberalism as we know it.

This would run up against P.T. Barnum's saying that there is a sucker born every minute but maybe he is right.

My own thinking on the matter is that the majority of Americans actually do entertain the fantasy that there ought to be an efficient and affordable healthcare system run by the government and they are only going to conclude that maybe Obama, the "community organizer" wasn't the one one to do it. They will probably look to a Republican next time, someone like, say, Chris Christie who might be more efficient at implementing the socialist agenda that Obama started.

[Benko]

Charles Krauthammer is saying that Obamacare may turn out to be the swan song for modern liberalism as we know it.

This would run up against P.T. Barnum's saying that there is a sucker born every minute but maybe he is right.

My own thinking on the matter is that the majority of Americans actually do entertain the fantasy that there ought to be an efficient and affordable healthcare system run by the government and they are only going to conclude that maybe Obama, the "community organizer" wasn't the one one to do it. They will probably look to a Republican next time, someone like, say, Chris Christie who might be more efficient at implementing the socialist agenda that Obama started.

"56% of U.S. adults who now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage "
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165917/major ... ility.aspx

Of course that will only last 10 minutes, but perhaps enough to dodge the bullet for now.  And perhaps one benefit is that we're less likely to choose a president next time who has no significant qualifications.  Of course that excludes all the Senators including Ron Paul,  etc., But I'd like to know more about Walker and he does have a track record of actually fighting the infidels and winning.  No small feat.

[clacy]

This is what happens when a bunch of lawyers and academics try to take over a large section of the private sector. 

These people simply have no operational experience.  Their incompetence is actually astounding.  I think it's because most of these (primarily Democratic) politicians have ZERO real world, business experience.  They've never had to be productive in their lives.

They "don't even know, what they don't know".

They should have gotten a tech CEO and an insurance CEO (former) to head up the implementation of this program.  But these guys (and gals) have such a low opinion of businesses, and such a high opinion of themselves, they thought they could do it better.

Laughable

[RuralEngineer]

This is important but will be overlooked by the vast majority of people because most of the electorate is too stupid to grasp the implications of this quote:

As we have said, CMS prioritized essential functionality to be live on Oct. 1 to ensure that consumers would be able to apply for eligibility and select a plan. Other functionality will come online over time. This is a complex project with a short timeline—and as such issues were prioritized to meet the Oct. 1 launch date. As part of this prioritization, back-end tools, including financial management, monthly enrollment reconciliation and risk adjustment, which are not consumer facing and not essential until 2014 will be rolled out in the coming months.

Basically those in charge of the roll out were mandated to focus on the parts of the website that impact Obama's metrics.  He's not on the hook for whether payments can be made to insurance companies, or any of the other tools mentioned.  What is he on the hook for?  7 million enrollments by March 31st.

Rolling out the website with only the ability to sign up for insurance, but do nothing beyond that is absolutely shocking, I think it's a fair assumption that someone was directed to do this.  No rational human being would release a product in such a state and the managers of the companies involved in this farce are still much smarter than anyone in the administration.  I can guess where the marching orders came from.

[edsanville]

More like FUBARmacare.

[Pointedstick]

Probably the only smart thing about Obamacare is how most of it went into effect after the midterm elections.

[dragoncar]

This is important but will be overlooked by the vast majority of people because most of the electorate is too stupid to grasp the implications of this quote:

As we have said, CMS prioritized essential functionality to be live on Oct. 1 to ensure that consumers would be able to apply for eligibility and select a plan. Other functionality will come online over time. This is a complex project with a short timeline—and as such issues were prioritized to meet the Oct. 1 launch date. As part of this prioritization, back-end tools, including financial management, monthly enrollment reconciliation and risk adjustment, which are not consumer facing and not essential until 2014 will be rolled out in the coming months.

Basically those in charge of the roll out were mandated to focus on the parts of the website that impact Obama's metrics.  He's not on the hook for whether payments can be made to insurance companies, or any of the other tools mentioned.  What is he on the hook for?  7 million enrollments by March 31st.

Rolling out the website with only the ability to sign up for insurance, but do nothing beyond that is absolutely shocking, I think it's a fair assumption that someone was directed to do this.  No rational human being would release a product in such a state and the managers of the companies involved in this farce are still much smarter than anyone in the administration.  I can guess where the marching orders came from.

Wut.  "Release early" is the current mantra of the tech CEOs that Clancy would like running Obamacare.  Of all the things "wrong" with this launch, prioritizing features based on when they are needed is the most laughable complaint.

And it's really nice to hear that private industry never screws up a launch.  Yup, can't find a single example of that.

[Kshartle]

This is important but will be overlooked by the vast majority of people because most of the electorate is too stupid to grasp the implications of this quote:

As we have said, CMS prioritized essential functionality to be live on Oct. 1 to ensure that consumers would be able to apply for eligibility and select a plan. Other functionality will come online over time. This is a complex project with a short timeline—and as such issues were prioritized to meet the Oct. 1 launch date. As part of this prioritization, back-end tools, including financial management, monthly enrollment reconciliation and risk adjustment, which are not consumer facing and not essential until 2014 will be rolled out in the coming months.

Basically those in charge of the roll out were mandated to focus on the parts of the website that impact Obama's metrics.  He's not on the hook for whether payments can be made to insurance companies, or any of the other tools mentioned.  What is he on the hook for?  7 million enrollments by March 31st.

Rolling out the website with only the ability to sign up for insurance, but do nothing beyond that is absolutely shocking, I think it's a fair assumption that someone was directed to do this.  No rational human being would release a product in such a state and the managers of the companies involved in this farce are still much smarter than anyone in the administration.  I can guess where the marching orders came from.

Wut.  "Release early" is the current mantra of the tech CEOs that Clancy would like running Obamacare.  Of all the things "wrong" with this launch, prioritizing features based on when they are needed is the most laughable complaint.

And it's really nice to hear that private industry never screws up a launch.  Yup, can't find a single example of that.

When private industry screws up a launch they don't come stick a gun in my face and demand I make up the losses. The investors and employees take the hit. That's the difference. That's also why the only way to support this Obamacare nonsense is to disregard any sense of morality and embrace the "ends justify the means" mindset. That mindset is the utter lack of morality. How could it end in any way other than complete failure?

[Benko]

When private industry screws up a launch they don't come stick a gun in my face and demand I make up the losses. The investors and employees take the hit. That's the difference. That's also why the only way to support this Obamacare nonsense is to disregard any sense of morality and embrace the "ends justify the means" mindset. That mindset is the utter lack of morality. How could it end in any way other than complete failure?

"When private industry screws up a launch they don't come stick a gun in my face and demand I make up the losses. The investors and employees take the hit"

And someone loses their job unlike in Gov't.  The fact that you have to explain this...

"the only way to support this Obamacare nonsense is to disregard any sense of morality and embrace the "ends justify the means" mindset."

You mean like Alinksy and those who follow him?

[Kshartle]

When private industry screws up a launch they don't come stick a gun in my face and demand I make up the losses. The investors and employees take the hit. That's the difference. That's also why the only way to support this Obamacare nonsense is to disregard any sense of morality and embrace the "ends justify the means" mindset. That mindset is the utter lack of morality. How could it end in any way other than complete failure?

"When private industry screws up a launch they don't come stick a gun in my face and demand I make up the losses. The investors and employees take the hit"

And someone loses their job unlike in Gov't.  The fact that you have to explain this...

"the only way to support this Obamacare nonsense is to disregard any sense of morality and embrace the "ends justify the means" mindset."

You mean like Alinksy and those who follow him?

I've never heard of him but just did a google search. The unfalable internet said he was a major influence for Hilary and Barrack. Sounds like he was a champion of the poor. He must have have advocated freedom them so they can work and save and the economy/free market can lift them out of poverty right?

J/K...looks like he just advocated organized theft. Yeap...."ends justify the means". Zero morality.

[Benko]

It is truly unfortunate because there was a time when liberals really cared about people....

The full text is very worth reading Dan Simmons (multiple award winner in many genre's and classical liberal) comments about classical liberalism vs what we have now:

http://forum.dansimmons.com/ubbthreads/ ... Post151584

[quote=Dan Simmons]Dan Simmons comments:
I have argued and will continue to argue that there's a serious difference between "classical liberalism" -- even as it morphed into an ever more statist-uber-alles near religious orthodoxy in the last third of the 20th Century -- and Barack Obama's "progressives' Social Democracy" plans and policies straight out of failed European socialism.

The liberalism of the 1960's had laser-tight focus and goals: to advance civil rights and voting equality, to end a destructive and polarizing war in Vietnam, and to use the profits of a successful free-market, lower-taxes (as in under JFK) society to create or improve the safety nets of compassion for groups that always seemed to get the short end of the stick.

Somewhere in the last couple of decades, the Social Democracy element of coercion-by-the-state crept in there.  That kind of coercion is the hallmark and modus operandi of the Obama regime. In this new Social Democracy progressivism, brazen lying to the American people -- by the Attorney General and his revamped racist Justice Department, by the State Department when self-imposed disaster strikes, by All the President's Women in high places, and by the president himself -- is justified because of the magnificence of the coming "social justice" rising out of the Social Democracy goals...

  [/quote]

[dragoncar]

This is important but will be overlooked by the vast majority of people because most of the electorate is too stupid to grasp the implications of this quote:
Basically those in charge of the roll out were mandated to focus on the parts of the website that impact Obama's metrics.  He's not on the hook for whether payments can be made to insurance companies, or any of the other tools mentioned.  What is he on the hook for?  7 million enrollments by March 31st.

Rolling out the website with only the ability to sign up for insurance, but do nothing beyond that is absolutely shocking, I think it's a fair assumption that someone was directed to do this.  No rational human being would release a product in such a state and the managers of the companies involved in this farce are still much smarter than anyone in the administration.  I can guess where the marching orders came from.

Wut.  "Release early" is the current mantra of the tech CEOs that Clancy would like running Obamacare.  Of all the things "wrong" with this launch, prioritizing features based on when they are needed is the most laughable complaint.

And it's really nice to hear that private industry never screws up a launch.  Yup, can't find a single example of that.

When private industry screws up a launch they don't come stick a gun in my face and demand I make up the losses. The investors and employees take the hit. That's the difference. That's also why the only way to support this Obamacare nonsense is to disregard any sense of morality and embrace the "ends justify the means" mindset. That mindset is the utter lack of morality. How could it end in any way other than complete failure?

Not really, many are more successful after the partial launch.  See the iPhone.  I have no idea what you are talking about wrt guns.  Is that like community organizing?

[Kshartle]

When private industry screws up a launch they don't come stick a gun in my face and demand I make up the losses. The investors and employees take the hit. That's the difference. That's also why the only way to support this Obamacare nonsense is to disregard any sense of morality and embrace the "ends justify the means" mindset. That mindset is the utter lack of morality. How could it end in any way other than complete failure?

Not really, many are more successful after the partial launch.  See the iPhone.  I have no idea what you are talking about wrt guns.  Is that like community organizing?

Oppps. Totally misunderstood your point. You're saying even though the government totally botched the rollout of Obamacare it might still succeed right?

My point about the guns is when a government program fails and creates huge losses (wastes resources), the taxpayers and everyone else take the losses. They aren't risking their own capital with these schemes...they are risking everyone else's.

[Pointedstick]

Not really, many are more successful after the partial launch.  See the iPhone.  I have no idea what you are talking about wrt guns.  Is that like community organizing?

The iPhone was a partial launch? Was the phone app not able to receive voicemails or something at the time of sale?

[Kshartle]

Not really, many are more successful after the partial launch.  See the iPhone.  I have no idea what you are talking about wrt guns.  Is that like community organizing?

The iPhone was a partial launch? Was the phone app not able to receive voicemails or something at the time of sale?

Was apple not able to accept payment when people left with iPhones? That's an even better question ahahahahahahahaahahha

[dragoncar]

Not really, many are more successful after the partial launch.  See the iPhone.  I have no idea what you are talking about wrt guns.  Is that like community organizing?

The iPhone was a partial launch? Was the phone app not able to receive voicemails or something at the time of sale?

Was apple not able to accept payment when people left with iPhones? That's an even better question ahahahahahahahaahahha

Many thought so -- no cut and paste, apps, gps, and a slew of other incremental features.

As for accepting payment, many many starrtups are not monetized.

My point is simply that a partial rollout focusing on the features needed NOW, and completing functionality an a separate timeline for features needed LATER is exactly what private industry often does.  So don't pretend that a tech CEO would have made a different decision given their resources and progress.

The iPhone was a partial launch? Was the phone app not able to receive voicemails or something at the time of sale?

Was apple not able to accept payment when people left with iPhones? That's an even better question ahahahahahahahaahahha

or was apples partial launch done just before the next big board meeting for no reason other than Steve jobs wanted to look good, with no regard for the users of the product or the end results??

Yes, in tech this is often the case-- launch ASAP so that you meet shareholder metrics.  You don't think tech CEOs act in a shortsighted manner, sacrificing long term company health for a good quarter or year?  Have you looked at the histories of many current and former tech giants?

[Pointedstick]

No matter the details, if a private company had rolled out something as disastrous as Obamacare after years of hype, contentious discussions about whether or not it should even exist, and multiple rounds of fundraising, I think it's fair to say that it would be scrapped pretty quickly and the people who were looking forward to it would start to look for alternatives.

Of course, since it was created by legislative fiat, not only will it not disappear easily, but it also can't be replaced by something better without another bruising, divisive political battle that pits 50% of us against the other 50%.

[Kshartle]

I think it's fair to say that no matter the details, if a private company had rolled out something as disastrous as Obamacare after years of hype, contentious discussions about whether or not it should even exist, and multiple rounds of fundraising, I think it's fair to say that it would be scrapped pretty quickly and the people who were looking forward to it would start to look for alternatives.

Of course, since it was created by legislative fiat, not only will it not disappear easily, but it also can't be replaced by something better without another bruising, divisive political battle that pits 50% of us against the other 50%.

It's going to be such a disaster that it will have to be replaced.....by something much worse. This is another difference between the fruits of voluntary vs. the fruits of violence.