Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Insurers still reporting 'significant problems' with Obamacare enrollment data
Obama administration officials insisted Monday that the tech team overseeing fixes to the troubled federal healthcare.gov website had resolved most of the errors plaguing the enrollment information being sent to insurers.
But insurers haven’t yet noticed a difference, according to a spokesman for industry lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans.
The files, known as "834" forms, contain all of the relevant personal information for individuals who have signed up for health insurance, along with details on their plan choices. But these forms have been riddled with errors such as duplicated enrollments and spouses getting mixed up with children.
If these forms are not fixed, then insurers cannot smoothly process payments or ensure that individuals are enrolled in the right plans. This could be a nightmare come Jan. 1, when individuals start attempting to use their insurance. Some may show up at doctors’ offices thinking they are covered, but find out that they never were actually enrolled.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
“We believe that the majority of fixes to the 834 forms have been made, including significant ones over the weekend,” White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted.
Speaking on a Monday afternoon conference call, Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said that the tech team “working with issuers determined that more than 80 percent of the 834 production errors were actually due to one bug that prevented a Social Security number from being included in an application.”
Bataille continued, “The bottom line is that we have fixed many of the bugs that led to the 834 issues. The software fixes we implemented over the past several weeks will ensure better quality information is sent to issuers so accurate 834s can be produced and enrollment completed.”
But reached by email after the conference call, AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelback told the Washington Examiner: "Health plans continue to experience significant problems with the ‘834’ enrollment files."
During the CMS call, Bataille would not disclose the error rates on the 834 transactions, despite several attempts from several different reporters.
On an Oct. 24 conference call, Bataille claimed that the errors were "isolated" and then a day later Jeff Zients, who was brought in to oversee fixes to the troubled Obamacare website, said the errors were actually on top of CMS's list of fixes.
Maybe its my BS detector on overdrive every time Jay Carney makes a statement, but I really hope that his statement meant that they are addressing the serious issues (like one bug causing 80% of the issues) and not just smaller issues so that the figures can be massaged to say that X bugs have been fixed rather than deal with substantive fixes.
djones520 wrote: Latest reports saying that there was no security at all built into the website... that would almost be criminal negligence in my eyes.
Yup, especially given the three years to build the site. Most people are quite cautious about which sites they enter credit card information on, but now they are being driven to enter their SSN, personal details, and medical history a website with negligible security.
“All Americans know politicians lie. The question is which lies can you live with? And, time and time again, Americans have said we can deal with the lies that President Obama tells us because we believe in his heart he has the best interest for the American people. Every president is going to lie to you. Every politician is going to lie to you. The question is which lies can you live with?”
Jeebus... o.O
It’s OK for Obama to lie because he has our best interest in mind.
So from "Hope" and "Change" to, "Of course We're going to lie to you - it is business as usual". Does that mean that the guy who shouted "You lie" deserves an apology?
I didn't realize that lying to people so that they lose their health cover was a lie that we can live with, especially those living with chronic and/or severe medical conditions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/03 16:36:23
We just had our employee benefits meeting to sign up for health care for next year.
I just came to the realization that it does not pay to be a middle income married couple in America these days.
Our employer offers health coverage. Great.
The employee cost for family coverage is $648 / month.
If it were just me and the kids.... $400.
If it were just me? $90
If it were just me and my wife? $550
I asked our reps about the exchange, since they have received training on them.
Apparently, none of us who are employees would qualify for a subsidized rate because our employer offers a plan that costs "no greater than 9.5% of your income".
I ran the math. The $648 is almost 22% of my monthly income. So I asked how that meets the 9.5% stipulation because it sure isn't close to that for me!
Yeah.....the employer only needs to offer the EMPLOYEE ONLY rate at 9.5% or less to qualify their plan.
And I was informed that my spouse wouldn't be able to get a subsidized rate because...well...she's my spouse and my employer's plan meets the ACA income/cost regulation.
I told her that we should just get divorced and co-habitate....because it definitely does not pay to be married these days!!
djones520 wrote: Latest reports saying that there was no security at all built into the website... that would almost be criminal negligence in my eyes.
Im telling you people, the CGI company that made this site, is the one that made the corrupt, and horribly expensive/non functional canadian gun registry...
as a "Ill scratch your back" hand off from the liberal government ...
and now, no one is surprised, that despite the registry being "deleted" by federal law, copies of it still manage to make it into the hands of certain people... despite it having private info like gun owners names/address/guns
I would not be at all surprised to see them mishandle the OB care site the same way, and treat americans private information with the same lack of respect that they did to canadians.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/03 17:31:32
Matthew J. Belvedere wrote:No security ever built into Obamacare site: Hacker
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000221159
Dissecting the critical security problems with the website Healthcare.gov, with TrustedSec CEO David Kennedy. "It will take a long time to address some of the critical and high exposures on the website itself," he says.
It could take a year to secure the risk of "high exposures" of personal information on the federal Obamacare online exchange, a cybersecurity expert told CNBC on Monday.
"When you develop a website, you develop it with security in mind. And it doesn't appear to have happened this time," said David Kennedy, a so-called "white hat" hacker who tests online security by breaching websites. He testified on Capitol Hill about the flaws of HealthCare.gov last week.
"It's really hard to go back and fix the security around it because security wasn't built into it," said Kennedy, chief executive of TrustedSec. "We're talking multiple months to over a year to at least address some of the critical-to-high exposures on the website itself."
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversaw the implementation of the website, the components used to build the site are compliant with standards set by Federal security authorities.
"The privacy and security of consumers' personal information are a top priority for us. Security testing happens on an ongoing basis using industry best practices to appropriately safeguard consumers' personal information," said the spokesperson.
Another online security expert—who spoke at last week's House hearing and then on CNBC—said the federal Obamacare website needs to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch. Morgan Wright, CEO of Crowd Sourced Investigations said: "There's not a plan to fix this that meets the sniff test of being reasonable."
Last month, a Sept. 27 government memorandum surfaced in which two HHS officials said the security of the site had not been properly tested before it opened, creating "a high risk."
HHS had explained then that steps were taken to ease security concerns after the memo was written, and that consumer information was secure. Technicians fixed a security bug in the password reset function in late October, the agency said.
But on CNBC, Kennedy disputed those claims, saying vulnerabilities remain on "everything from hacking someone's computer so when you visit the website it actually tries to hack your computer back, all the way to being able to extract email addresses, users names—first name, last name—[and] locations."
Government officials and contractors have been working around the clock for weeks, releasing fixes on HealthCare.gov nightly with the goal of meeting the Obama administration's self-imposed deadline of the end of the month to have the site working smoothly.
"When you look at the site itself, it could be really good. It could do really well. They're just not building the security into the site itself," said Kennedy. "Putting your information on there is definitely a risk."
The federal portal serves 36 states not operating their own health insurance exchanges. Fourteen other states and the District of Columbia run their own marketplaces. All of them launched on Oct. 1 as part of the Obamacare provision mandating most Americans have health-care coverage for next year or face tax penalties.
When it comes to securing personal information online, Kennedy cited Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter as models for the industry. He even said the IRS website does regular testing to help "ensure that when the websites come out they're protected."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/03 17:32:27
“All Americans know politicians lie. The question is which lies can you live with? And, time and time again, Americans have said we can deal with the lies that President Obama tells us because we believe in his heart he has the best interest for the American people. Every president is going to lie to you. Every politician is going to lie to you. The question is which lies can you live with?”
Jeebus... o.O
It’s OK for Obama to lie because he has our best interest in mind.
Talk about sheep...
See, you're trying to use people logic. DM uses Mandelogic, which we've established has 2+2=quack. - Aerethan
Putin.....would make a Vulcan Intelligence officer cry. - Jihadin
AFAIK, there is only one world, and it is the real world. - Iron_Captain
DakkaRank Comment: I sound like a Power Ranger.
TFOL and proud. Also a Forge World Fan.
I should really paint some of my models instead of browsing forums.
“All Americans know politicians lie. The question is which lies can you live with? And, time and time again, Americans have said we can deal with the lies that President Obama tells us because we believe in his heart he has the best interest for the American people. Every president is going to lie to you. Every politician is going to lie to you. The question is which lies can you live with?”
Jeebus... o.O
It’s OK for Obama to lie because he has our best interest in mind.
Talk about sheep...
exactly... the same "he lied to protect america" was the same reasoning the left crucified bush supporters over after the Iraq invasion revealed no nukes.... and at least bush honestly thought there were nukes there, he at least I can see being dumb enough to just do whatever his advisors tell him is best...
obama knew very well that OB care would roll out the way it did,
djones520 wrote: Latest reports saying that there was no security at all built into the website... that would almost be criminal negligence in my eyes.
Im telling you people, the CGI company that made this site, is the one that made the corrupt, and horribly expensive/non functional canadian gun registry...
as a "Ill scratch your back" hand off from the liberal government ...
and now, no one is surprised, that despite the registry being "deleted" by federal law, copies of it still manage to make it into the hands of certain people... despite it having private info like gun owners names/address/guns
I would not be at all surprised to see them mishandle the OB care site the same way, and treat americans private information with the same lack of respect that they did to canadians.
Is that the same CGI that is responsible for the much maligned Human Terrain System program?
That would be a problem for any military project. But the Human Terrain System has had all sorts of recruiting woes. Many in the academic social science community has been hostile to the effort. So have others working on cultural competency, within the military. "There are not enough Afghan experts in the entire United States to staff more than one or two human terrain teams, which have been the
Achilles’ heel of the program from the start," Chris Mason, a former State Department specialist on Afghanistan, tells the Globe.
It’s not the only problem facing the Human Terrain effort. Three of the program’s social scientists have been killed on duty. One former employee has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, for a revenge slaying in Afghanistan. Another is awaiting trial on espionage charges. Most recently, a sexual harrassment investigation found that one of the Human Terrain groups in Afghanistan had become a "hostile environment" to female employees. Which probably won’t help recruit new social scientists to the program.
WASHINGTON — Senior Army leaders were warned about potential fraud and rampant sexual harassment by government social scientists sent to Iraq and Afghanistan under the Army's Human Terrain System, newly released documents show.
An investigation of time cards submitted by the Human Terrain Team members in 2009 and 2010 "revealed irregularities both in overtime and compensatory time card reporting...Of note, supervisory involvement in the time sheet management process was not documented, nor does there appear to be an auditable system in place," according to documents released by the Army.
In February, a USA TODAY investigation of the program found substantiated instances of sexual harassment and racism, potential fraud in filing time sheets and indifference to the reports team members had produced. The Army documents were obtained earlier this year by USA TODAY through a Freedom of Information Act request. But the Army withheld some part of the report then, and released them this month after a series of FOIA appeals.
The newly released documents, most from 2010, show that concerns about Human Terrain Team members reached high levels of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), including the deputy commander.
A "climate survey" of the program, meanwhile, showed that "race and gender discrimination; allegations of age and national origin discrimination also exist." It states that "the potential exists for the filing of numerous (minimum of 14) Equal Employment Opportunity complaints."
A few of the comments from team members "attempt to portray the general consensus of responders."
Among them:
• "My supervisor is the laziest, most incompetent human being I have ever met."
• "Program is fraught with waste, fraud and abuse."
• "Sexual harassment is prevalent and sexist behavior is an everyday occurrence; I was sexually harassed in the field repeatedly; sexual comments and jokes are rampant; nearly every female in the program faces some form of sexual harassment."
The Army recognized the time-sheet fraud was a problem and ordered training for Human Terrain System employees on how to fill them out properly, the documents show. It has also said that sexual harassment is not tolerated, and a contractor found responsible for it was fired.
Funding also has nearly been cut in half over the last two years for the program, which puts social scientists on the battlefield to help commanders understand local societies.
The Army has allotted $58 million to fund 20 teams of social scientists in 2013. That compares with $114 million in 2011 for 41 teams, according to the Army. The decrease can be attributed to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, said Greg Mueller, an Army spokesman. Fewer teams on the battlefield results in a smaller budget for the program, he said.
A critic in Congress is calling for deeper cuts to the program.
"The HTS reduction is long overdue and it's good to see the Army take this initial action to downsize the program," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican and member of the Armed Services Committee. "The program definitely requires an even closer look for reasons pertaining to both past performance and future necessity."
The House in July directed the Pentagon to report on the need for the program given because it will have limited use as the military focuses on the Asia-Pacific region. The armed services committee noted the need for "sociocultural capabilities" and noted that the Human Terrain System had filled gaps in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"However, the committee is concerned that with the draw down of forces in Afghanistan and the refocus to the Asia-Pacific region, there may be a growing sense that some of the capabilities that proved so useful in the Middle East will be of little or no value in potential contingencies rooted in the Asia Pacific region," the committee's report said.
STORY: Army plows ahead with troubled war-zone program
Human Terrain Team members, trained in the United States as contractors, deploy to war zones as federal employees. Their goal: advise commanders on how to avoid bloodshed by understanding local cultures and provide them insight in how to improve the lives of local residents.
The program expanded rapidly as the military embraced counterinsurgency principles at the peak of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Several former and current members of the program told investigators and the paper, on condition of anonymity, that they regularly filed for hours they didn't work, taking home more than $200,000 a year and months of comp time for little effort. The Army's internal investigation showed that supervisors directed team members to claim the maximum amount of overtime and comp time possible, earning them salaries topping $280,000 and entitling them to six months paid leave upon returning to the United States.
By contrast, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel earns a salary of about $200,000.
The Army has responded to allegations of fraud, which it has said have not been substantiated by investigators, by providing more training on properly filling out time sheets.
Some commanders also questioned the value of the teams' reports, according to Army documents.
In February, an analysis of the military reviews of the program showed that the details of the scathing internal Army report were not passed on to others reviewing the program.
A May 2010 study by the TRADOC's Office of Internal Review and Audit Compliance at the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, which controls the program, did not cite the problems with fraudulent time sheets, harassment or racism. Nor did a November 2010 study by the Center for Naval Analyses that Congress demanded from the Pentagon. The details were also missing in a June 2012 Pentagon inspector general's analysis.
Sounds like a first rate choice to implement the ACA's website, especially with a no bid contract......
Breotan wrote: And now from CNBC, the revelation that there is apparently ZERO security built into the web site. GG all of you who plug in your personal info.
Matthew J. Belvedere wrote:No security ever built into Obamacare site: Hacker
Spoiler:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000221159
Dissecting the critical security problems with the website Healthcare.gov, with TrustedSec CEO David Kennedy. "It will take a long time to address some of the critical and high exposures on the website itself," he says.
It could take a year to secure the risk of "high exposures" of personal information on the federal Obamacare online exchange, a cybersecurity expert told CNBC on Monday.
"When you develop a website, you develop it with security in mind. And it doesn't appear to have happened this time," said David Kennedy, a so-called "white hat" hacker who tests online security by breaching websites. He testified on Capitol Hill about the flaws of HealthCare.gov last week.
"It's really hard to go back and fix the security around it because security wasn't built into it," said Kennedy, chief executive of TrustedSec. "We're talking multiple months to over a year to at least address some of the critical-to-high exposures on the website itself."
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversaw the implementation of the website, the components used to build the site are compliant with standards set by Federal security authorities.
"The privacy and security of consumers' personal information are a top priority for us. Security testing happens on an ongoing basis using industry best practices to appropriately safeguard consumers' personal information," said the spokesperson.
Another online security expert—who spoke at last week's House hearing and then on CNBC—said the federal Obamacare website needs to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch. Morgan Wright, CEO of Crowd Sourced Investigations said: "There's not a plan to fix this that meets the sniff test of being reasonable."
Last month, a Sept. 27 government memorandum surfaced in which two HHS officials said the security of the site had not been properly tested before it opened, creating "a high risk."
HHS had explained then that steps were taken to ease security concerns after the memo was written, and that consumer information was secure. Technicians fixed a security bug in the password reset function in late October, the agency said.
But on CNBC, Kennedy disputed those claims, saying vulnerabilities remain on "everything from hacking someone's computer so when you visit the website it actually tries to hack your computer back, all the way to being able to extract email addresses, users names—first name, last name—[and] locations."
Government officials and contractors have been working around the clock for weeks, releasing fixes on HealthCare.gov nightly with the goal of meeting the Obama administration's self-imposed deadline of the end of the month to have the site working smoothly.
"When you look at the site itself, it could be really good. It could do really well. They're just not building the security into the site itself," said Kennedy. "Putting your information on there is definitely a risk."
The federal portal serves 36 states not operating their own health insurance exchanges. Fourteen other states and the District of Columbia run their own marketplaces. All of them launched on Oct. 1 as part of the Obamacare provision mandating most Americans have health-care coverage for next year or face tax penalties.
When it comes to securing personal information online, Kennedy cited Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter as models for the industry. He even said the IRS website does regular testing to help "ensure that when the websites come out they're protected."
It's actually much worse than that...
Just to fix the big holes in security... not to mention the little ones:
"We're talking multiple months to over a year to at least address some of the critical-to-high exposures on the website itself."
The federal government is NOT required to inform users when their security has been compromised. Whereas states ARE required to notify in the event of a breach
I think we can safely predict that this administration will hide this information from the victims of any hacking activities into this site... dontcha think?
The federal government is NOT required to inform users when their security has been compromised. Whereas states ARE required to notify in the event of a breach
I think we can safely predict that this administration will hide this information from the victims of any hacking activities into this site... dontcha think?
If Obama never knows when something goes wrong why would anyone else working for him would know either?
TheMeanDM wrote: We just had our employee benefits meeting to sign up for health care for next year.
I just came to the realization that it does not pay to be a middle income married couple in America these days.
Our employer offers health coverage. Great.
The employee cost for family coverage is $648 / month.
If it were just me and the kids.... $400.
If it were just me? $90
If it were just me and my wife? $550
I asked our reps about the exchange, since they have received training on them.
Apparently, none of us who are employees would qualify for a subsidized rate because our employer offers a plan that costs "no greater than 9.5% of your income".
I ran the math. The $648 is almost 22% of my monthly income. So I asked how that meets the 9.5% stipulation because it sure isn't close to that for me!
Yeah.....the employer only needs to offer the EMPLOYEE ONLY rate at 9.5% or less to qualify their plan.
And I was informed that my spouse wouldn't be able to get a subsidized rate because...well...she's my spouse and my employer's plan meets the ACA income/cost regulation.
I told her that we should just get divorced and co-habitate....because it definitely does not pay to be married these days!!
Companies usually don't subsidize anyone but the employee. You very much are better having you and your wife on different plans if both your employers subsidize you, the employee.
If I am single, why should I only get myself subsidized but you get your whole family subsidized. Then means companies would be paying thousands more per year if they hire a single vs married vs with kids person. In your example, if looks like the 'spouse' costs around 248$ a month, so the company is eating 158$ a month by insuring you. That means the subsidy they pay is 1896$ a year. In the new system, that 1896$ will be reported as income on your W2s. Since they only do one employee subsidizing, they can't subsidize your wife and kids who don't work for the company and don't collect a W2. If they were going to pay for spouses and family, it couldn't be reported on your W2 this way, they would need to set up some sort of other perk system and report it as additional income in the form of a bonus or stipend. (which some companies do)
The only way it is fair is to subsidize all employees equally, which means only the coverage of the actual employee. Everyone has the option to add in, at full price. You pay the premium or get your wife and kids their own plan or use her employers plan.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
I wasn't asking for my "whole family" to be subsidized, thanks.
I was pointing out the irony of "affordable care" being the title of the "affordable care act" when in all reality, it's anything but when you're married and middle income.
Individual people are getting the big breaks, while married people are being penalized--especially if one married person relies on the health insurance plan of their spouse for whatever reason (be it self-employed, unemployed, under-employed, etc--my wife is self-employed in this instance).
Sorry, but it really doesn't seem very affordable to me when you're married and middle income....is what the point of my post was and continues to be. Sorry if that wasn't 100% clear.
* * * * *
I get it now!
It's the Liberal Left's agenda to destroy the institution of marriage by making it financially detrimental to be married! They actually want co-habitating single people spitting out kids who can then go on government insurance too....they want people to be reliant on the government!
TheMeanDM wrote: I wasn't asking for my "whole family" to be subsidized, thanks.
I was pointing out the irony of "affordable care" being the title of the "affordable care act" when in all reality, it's anything but when you're married and middle income.
Individual people are getting the big breaks, while married people are being penalized--especially if one married person relies on the health insurance plan of their spouse for whatever reason (be it self-employed, unemployed, under-employed, etc--my wife is self-employed in this instance).
Sorry, but it really doesn't seem very affordable to me when you're married and middle income....is what the point of my post was and continues to be. Sorry if that wasn't 100% clear.
It should be named The Accessable Care Act... not affordable.
Well... no, not yet. The website is still broken. BUT! If it was fixed, then "Accessable" is a better term.
I almost wish I wasn't covered so I could refuse to sign up.
Captain Killhammer McFighterson stared down at the surface of Earth from his high vantage point on the bridge of Starship Facemelter. Something ominous was looming on the surface. He could see a great shadow looming just underneath the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, slowly spreading northward. "That can't be good..." he muttered to himself while rubbing the super manly stubble on his chin with one hand. "But... on the other hand..." he looked at his shiny new bionic murder-arm. "This could be the perfect chance for that promotion." A perfect roundhouse kick slammed the ship's throttle into full gear. Soon orange jets of superheated plasma were visible from the space-windshield as Facemelter reentered the atmosphere at breakneck speed.
whembly wrote: It should be named The Accessable Care Act... not affordable.
Well... no, not yet. The website is still broken. BUT! If it was fixed, then "Accessable" is a better term.
Everyone and their dog was talking about the rising costs of healthcare in the US. The deficit was a disaster and most of it was due to the incredible increase in healthcare expenditure.
The ACA comes in and people complain that with so many more people getting covered its only going to be worse. I and many others explain that ACA is actually a cost control bill first and foremost - it is about healthcare that is affordable to the nation. People ignore this, talk around it or just plain deny it.
And now we have CBO numbers that note healthcare cost growth is the lowest of record. And that the 50 year forward estimate is the lowest it's ever been.
ACA is doing exactly what it said it would do. Your country may still be a low way from being able to afford its healthcare system, but ACA is a big step in the right direction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 04:58:30
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Breotan wrote: And now from CNBC, the revelation that there is apparently ZERO security built into the web site. GG all of you who plug in your personal info.
Matthew J. Belvedere wrote:No security ever built into Obamacare site: Hacker
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000221159
Dissecting the critical security problems with the website Healthcare.gov, with TrustedSec CEO David Kennedy. "It will take a long time to address some of the critical and high exposures on the website itself," he says.
It could take a year to secure the risk of "high exposures" of personal information on the federal Obamacare online exchange, a cybersecurity expert told CNBC on Monday.
"When you develop a website, you develop it with security in mind. And it doesn't appear to have happened this time," said David Kennedy, a so-called "white hat" hacker who tests online security by breaching websites. He testified on Capitol Hill about the flaws of HealthCare.gov last week.
"It's really hard to go back and fix the security around it because security wasn't built into it," said Kennedy, chief executive of TrustedSec. "We're talking multiple months to over a year to at least address some of the critical-to-high exposures on the website itself."
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversaw the implementation of the website, the components used to build the site are compliant with standards set by Federal security authorities.
"The privacy and security of consumers' personal information are a top priority for us. Security testing happens on an ongoing basis using industry best practices to appropriately safeguard consumers' personal information," said the spokesperson.
Another online security expert—who spoke at last week's House hearing and then on CNBC—said the federal Obamacare website needs to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch. Morgan Wright, CEO of Crowd Sourced Investigations said: "There's not a plan to fix this that meets the sniff test of being reasonable."
Last month, a Sept. 27 government memorandum surfaced in which two HHS officials said the security of the site had not been properly tested before it opened, creating "a high risk."
HHS had explained then that steps were taken to ease security concerns after the memo was written, and that consumer information was secure. Technicians fixed a security bug in the password reset function in late October, the agency said.
But on CNBC, Kennedy disputed those claims, saying vulnerabilities remain on "everything from hacking someone's computer so when you visit the website it actually tries to hack your computer back, all the way to being able to extract email addresses, users names—first name, last name—[and] locations."
Government officials and contractors have been working around the clock for weeks, releasing fixes on HealthCare.gov nightly with the goal of meeting the Obama administration's self-imposed deadline of the end of the month to have the site working smoothly.
"When you look at the site itself, it could be really good. It could do really well. They're just not building the security into the site itself," said Kennedy. "Putting your information on there is definitely a risk."
The federal portal serves 36 states not operating their own health insurance exchanges. Fourteen other states and the District of Columbia run their own marketplaces. All of them launched on Oct. 1 as part of the Obamacare provision mandating most Americans have health-care coverage for next year or face tax penalties.
When it comes to securing personal information online, Kennedy cited Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter as models for the industry. He even said the IRS website does regular testing to help "ensure that when the websites come out they're protected."
Great, on top of going broke trying to pay for Obamacare policies, you can have anything that might be left stripped away by identity thieves. Gotta love the "Law of the land". It's the gift that keeps taking.
whembly wrote: It should be named The Accessable Care Act... not affordable.
Well... no, not yet. The website is still broken. BUT! If it was fixed, then "Accessable" is a better term.
Everyone and their dog was talking about the rising costs of healthcare in the US.
Well... yeah. No one ever said it was perfect.
The deficit was a disaster and most of it was due to the incredible increase in healthcare expenditure.
wut? That's not even remotely true Seb... rethink that. Please.
The ACA comes in and people complain that with so many more people getting covered its only going to be worse. I and many others explain that ACA is actually a cost control bill first and foremost - it is about healthcare that is affordable to the nation. People ignore this, talk around it or just plain deny it.
Bull. fething. gak.
It is NOT a "first and foremost" cost control bill. You really need to remove your partisan glasses a bit and look at not ONLY the bill, but it's true impact to the market/consumer.
And now we have CBO numbers that note healthcare cost growth is the lowest of record. And that the 50 year forward estimate is the lowest it's ever been.
That's actually been debunked... everytime the CBO attempts to re-calculate this, the costs keeps going UP.
Frankly, I think you need to stop worshipping this as you constantly bring it up. The CBO, is at best, an estimate. It's nothing more than a projection and suffers that same issues that forecasters suffers... they can't predictthe outcomes. The problem with this as people tend to look at this as "it's written in stone".
ACA is doing exactly what it said it would do.
Um... no. What's affordable about this?
There are numerous evidence Seb that the plans are MUCH worse. Why are you ignoring this?
Your country may still be a low way from being able to afford its healthcare system, but ACA is a big step in the right direction.
Obama and Democrats changed all of that... so with respect to the PPACA. Yeah... they built that!
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: Further more... the youngest Millennials are abandoning Obama and his policies:
The Democrats and Obama desperatelyneeds these Millennials in order for the PPACA to have any change at succeeding.
I currently have my healthcare fully paid by my employer. Next year I will need to begin contributing to cover extra costs. If I lose that healthcare for some reason, I refuse to sign up for ACA
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
Washington (CNN) -- Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of Obamacare's architects and staunchest supporters, is also the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the law's new exchanges.
Reid is the exception among the other top congressional leaders. GOP House Speaker John Boehner, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have all directed their staffs to join the exchange, their aides said.
In the charged atmosphere surrounding Obamacare, Reid's decision only gives Republicans more ammo to attack Democrats already suffering politically from the law's botched rollout.
In September, Reid told reporters, "Let's stop these really juvenile political games -- the one dealing with health care for senators and House members and our staff. We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that."
With website deadline met, Obamacare scrutiny increases
That's true. Reid and his personal staff will buy insurance through the exchange.
But it's also true that the law lets lawmakers decide if their committee and leadership staffers hold on to their federal employee insurance plans, an option Reid has exercised.
Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson emphasized, "We are just following the law."
But Republicans are already taking aim.
"I'm sure that regular Americans who just lost their insurance will feel comforted to know that Senator Reid's staff gets to keep their government plan," a senior GOP Senate aide said.
Former Reid staffer Jim Manley defended his old boss, arguing that "the only people hypocritical here are Republicans, who made this an issue in the first place."
And all four House and Senate leaders are required to relinquish their federal employee insurance plans next year and are choosing to enroll in the exchanges.
Washington (CNN) -- Donald Rumsfeld's most famous quote has to do with whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But he might as well have been a reporter talking about Obamacare.
"There are known unknowns," said Rumsfeld back in February of 2002. "That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."
When it comes to Obamacare and the frantic White House effort to right the listing website meant to bring private health insurance to the uninsured, there's a lot more we know we don't know than hard information we can point to.
Here, in order from least to most alarming, is a look at three of the things we're pretty sure the Obama administration knows about the health law and is choosing not to share:
1. How many people are on the website?
In fixing the healthcare.gov website, the head of the company tasked with cleaning up the mess touted the real-time information pored over by a large team of contractors and web programmers holed up in the D.C. exurb of Columbia, Maryland.
"Outside on the walls we have a band of about 15 different large screens or monitors," QSSI CEO Bikram Baskshi told reporters on a video conference November 29. "And what they tell us at any given point in time on multiple data points -- and these data points could range from what's the current traffic on the site, how many people are trying to access what part of the application. They also show us exactly (inaudible) the various components of the healthcare.gov system as a whole."
He and others went on to detail a menu of off-the-shelf computer programs and services that provide a remarkable level of detail to the people monitoring the website. It was monitoring that data that led site administrators to periodically employ a "queuing system." That means administrators thought the level of traffic was high enough that it might crash the site -- 50,000 concurrent users is supposed to be their max -- that it could again crash the site. So they shut the front door at times and essentially asked people to take a number before they could get to the portion where you apply for coverage.
With website deadline met, Obamacare scrutiny increases
On Monday, CMS spokeswoman Julie Bataille said more than 1 million people visited the site. She said 13,000 went into that online waiting room. But that was about it. We don't know how many people went on to apply for health insurance or even how many created accounts.
That 1 million figure includes window shoppers, too -- people who went on for what Bataille called "educational" reasons.
The metrics are important to grade not only whether the health site is working, but also how many people are actually moving toward getting insured.
2. How many people are signing up?
Among those website metrics that enable site administrators to know how many people are visiting at any given time is a program that allows them to know how far people are getting on the site and how many are actually applying for insurance.
Bill Clinton on Obamacare Progress Obamacare push Can President 'right' the Obamacare ship?
But don't look for any of that data from the White House, HHS or CMS. They've said they will only release data on a monthly basis.
The first disappointing enrollment numbers were rolled out November 15, six weeks after the website's troubled launch. The second set of enrollment figures are expected December 15, eight days before the deadline to sign up for a plan and be insured by January 1, when new insurance plans go online.
Supreme Court won't hear broader legal challenge to Obamacare
The administration must have some grasp on the data. On Monday, for instance, CMS announced that 1.46 million people have been determined to be newly eligible for Medicaid since the October 1 open enrollment period began. But when Bataille was asked on a conference call for reporters to give updated enrollment numbers, she demurred, arguing the administration wanted to wait for accurate data.
There is data available, just not for states serviced by HealthCare.gov. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have their own state-based insurance exchanges. Many of those have provided much more frequent updates on enrollment. CNN has an ongoing count for each sates.
One government agency projected 7 million Americans would seek private health insurance via Obamacare during 2014. The open enrollment period lasts until March 14, so there is time.
And there has been a pickup. After just more than 26,000 enrollments on the federal site, an administration official told CNN's Jim Acosta approximately that 100,000 had enrolled in November. That's an improvement, but far short of the 800,000 enrollments goal that had been set internally by the administration.
3. How broken is the back end?
If the front end of the website is the part seen by people who want to get insurance, the back end is the part seen by insurance companies who want to sell it to them. There are increasing reports that the back end of the system is just as glitchy now as the front end was back in October. Insurance company executives and industry spokespeople have raised increasingly frantic alarm bells that the information they are receiving from the website is at times faulty and duplicative. That's when they receive information at all. There are reports from some insurers that they have tested the website with
John Doe applications and not received them through the back end.
That's led to concerns that there are people who think they've signed up for health insurance but who might not be on the radar of any insurance company.
But while Bataille said Monday a new fix would address 80% of these errors, she wouldn't say how many errors there are. She declined to answer that question again on Tuesday.
As a result, Bataille said people getting insurance need to be dogged in following up and making sure they make a premium payment before January 1. She would not guarantee there are people who think they're getting health insurance after navigating the HealthCare.gov site, but who might not actually have it from an insurance company.
"It's important to remember there are some steps that consumers need to take in order for their coverage to be effective," said Bataille on Tuesday. "That certainly involves paying their first month's premium and then being in touch with their plan to confirm that their enrollment has in fact taken place. Consumers can call the issuer of their choice -- the person they have selected -- to confirm their coverage. They can also call our call center and we will work with them if there is any issue they are worried about."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 19:54:53
In September, Reid told reporters, "Let's stop these really juvenile political games -- the one dealing with health care for senators and House members and our staff. We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that."
But it's also true that the law lets lawmakers decide if their committee and leadership staffers hold on to their federal employee insurance plans, an option Reid has exercised.
Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson emphasized, "We are just following the law."
Former Reid staffer Jim Manley defended his old boss, arguing that "the only people hypocritical here are Republicans, who made this an issue in the first place."
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
