From JWF, the minor improvements in the front end only serve to exacerbate the huge problems on the back end.

Despite the Obama administration’s claim that HealthCare.gov is “vastly improved,” insurance companies are still grappling with error-riddled files fed to them from the flawed website. The lingering glitch could cause major problems weeks down the road, resulting in people thinking they’ve signed up when insurance companies have no record of them doing so.

These so-called “back-end” problems were largely glossed over when federal health officials confidently claimed over the weekend they had met their own goals for improving the website by Dec. 1.

...

Jeff Zients, the official appointed to fix the ObamaCare site since its disastrous Oct. 1 rollout, said it is “night and day from what it was.”

But insurers continue to deal with the same set of problems that have shaken their confidence for weeks in the system they have to rely on to enroll new customers.

“Until the enrollment process is working from end-to-end, many consumers will not be able to enroll in coverage,” Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement.

...

“This is not a functioning website yet,” James Capretta, senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told Fox News.

What the insurers are doing is hand-checking and hand-fixing of these mistakes. Which they can do, so long as there are not many forms to fix. But if Obama gets his wish and Obamacare "selections" ramp up, the manual fixing of error-riddled 834's will not be possible. The whole point of automating data is to take the limiting choke-point of slow human hands out of the process.

It's especially a problem for those who hope to have insurance by January 1st -- those kicked off their plans despite Obama's repeated assertions that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period" and that if you have insurance, "you don't have to do anything at all."

Well, those people not only have to fight with a system that still can't enroll people, but they might also have to go without insurance for a few months.

Posted by: Ace at 10:10 AM | Comments (277)
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

16:33 GMT:

“Things have changed. On the one hand, we aren’t exonerating the law enforcement agencies, but on the other hand, politicians who are joining the action now are dramatically radicalizing the situation. The mass character of the action became uncontrollable or rather controlled by certain political forces,”

Open revolution thread. Wading pool and creamed corn optional.

Enough with the damned cats. Its bunny time. more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:33 AM | Comments (293)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Mitch McConnell isn't too happy that conservative groups are tying to sway GOP primaries (his own mostly), so he's rallying the establishment troops to make sure the conservative insurgency is beat back.

“There were people who were basically afraid of [conservatives], frankly,” McConnell told the Washington Examiner. “It’s time for people to stand up to this sort of thing.”

McConnell worries that the Senate Conservatives Fund and other insurgent groups are pursuing a confrontational, uncompromising strategy that makes it impossible for conservatives to govern.

“The Senate Conservatives Fund is giving conservatism a bad name. They’re participating in ruining the [Republican] brand,” McConnell said. “What they do is mislead their donors into believing the reason that we can’t get as good an outcome as we’d like to get is not because of a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president, but because Republicans are insufficiently committed to the cause — which is utter nonsense.”

Republicans are "afraid" of conservatives?

I have two reactions to that...

1- Good

and

2- Apparently they aren't afraid enough.

more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:36 AM | Comments (485)
Post contains 1146 words, total size 8 kb.

Happy Monday.

WaPo's Goldfarb notes the emergence of a more populist strain among Democrats, particularly Sen. Liz Warren, and ties it to Election 2016. Of course, Goldfarb misstates what chained CPI would do in the first sentence (it reduces the growth rate of Social Security payments, not anyone's individual payments), but the gist is worth a read. A populist-flavored example from the right would be Sen. Lee and his proposed bump in the child tax credit.

Coehlo Speaks has some long and interesting posts (one and two) about the future of the GOP and whether a "transformative realignment" is coming. This is an area ripe for speculation (certainly, we see enough comparisons of the GOP to the Whig Party these days) and I encourage you to read it, but not because I think it's necessarily correct.

As I have argued a couple times on the podcast, things in existence have a tendency to stay in existence, and that goes for both the political parties and their significantly less-than-dependable voters. The story of political transformation is evolutionary, not revolutionary, as even Coehlo admits. The attempt to tie our current situation to three prior unusual revolutions in U.S. politics relies on extraordinary circumstances that don't exist here -- an actual revolution (aka the Civil War), the Great Depression and subsequent Second War, and the Vietnam War.

Or let me put it this way. Those who thought 2004 ushered in a decades-long era of Republican primacy were foolish. Those who thought 2008 would usher in a decades-long era of Democratic governance were foolish. And those who think 2016 can provide a decades-long era of Republican dominance are also foolish.

Our present circumstances don't even meet Coehlo's own terms for realignment. From his second post:

There are three essential factors that precipitated the dawning of new political eras of the past. The first is rather obvious: an unpopular incumbent President from the party that has been dominant in an era. Second, a transcendent event or confluence of events must take place that serve to undermine the governing philosophy of the party in power. The third and final factor is an oft overlooked one. There must be a burgeoning new base already developing for the party to expand into, a region in a state of political flux that the other two factors push into the opposite camp. Each factor has been present in the 3 realignments outlined Friday, and they can be seen in today's political climate as well.

We certainly have an unpopular incumbent President, but not from a party that has been dominant in an era. There has been no dominant party for decades. Instead, we've seen an ebb and flow as fickle voters merely turn against the last group they've voted for. Modern elections are poo-flinging contests and it's easier for voters to simply vote for the guy wearing the least amount of poo at the end of the fight--and usually, that's members of the incumbent party.

Moreover, while Obamacare certainly undermines the entire liberal progressive project, there's no indication that Coehlo's third condition is met. Voters dissatisfied with Obama and the Democrats are more likely to vote for Republicans next time, sure. And they're also likely to change their vote at the following election if they become dissatisfied with Republican incumbents. These persuadable voters aren't ideological. They're not going to settle on one party and then stick for decades.

That's the lesson that populism advocates, like, say Warren and Lee, need to learn. You don't buy an electorate forever with a one-time-only give-away. You have to keep giving to keep getting them. And, to borrow an idea from Lady Thatcher, eventually you run out of other people's money to give away.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:53 AM | Comments (313)
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.

Break's over so get back on to the chain gang.

Regional Names

Some popular names are nationally popular while others seem to be quite region specific.

Quote of the Day

Those who want to "spread the wealth" almost invariably seek to concentrate the power. It happens too often, and in too many different countries around the world, to be a coincidence. Which is more dangerous, inequalities of wealth or concentrations of power?

  -- Thomas Sowell

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:35 PM | Comments (482)
Post contains 635 words, total size 9 kb.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Your 1954 Baltimore Colts Cheerleaders!

Open thread? I'll allow it.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:30 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

• Minor Oversight, Family Discovers Their Infant Isn't Covered Under Obamacare
  
• Despite WH Claims, Back End Of Healthcare.gov Still Not Working
  
• Amazon Unveils Futuristic Plan (autoplay video)
  
• Protests Escalate In Ukraine
  
• GOP Doctors Run For Congress Amid Obamacare Fiasco(autoplay video)
  
• George Will's Dire Obamacare Concern For 2014
  
• PJ O'Rourke On The Baby Boomers
  
• Flufftastic: AP Reveals Five New Things About Obama!
  
• Things Are About To Get Awesome In Venezuela
  
• Let The Recriminations Begin
  
• Obamacare Website Crashes When CNN Tries It
  
• An Historical Footnote To Aaron Burr's Ambition
  
• China Launches First Moon Rover Mission
  
• The Suburbs Are The New Swing States
  
• Focus For Many Consumers? Just Paying Bill
  
• Is There An Obama Doctrine
  
• The Tecmo Bowl Version Of The Auburn Win
  
• Well That Would Explain A Few Things
  
• Vernon Davis Tackled By His..Well..You'll See
  
• 100,000 People Allegedly Signed Up For Obamacare In November
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:10 AM | Comments (264)
Post contains 153 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh BTW, there seems to be a revolution going on in the Ukraine. [live updated post at Russia today]

Seems to have something to do with the govt abandoning a EU integration.

Former interior minister declares "revolution".

..."Our plan is clear: It's not a demonstration, it's not a reaction. It's a revolution," said Yuriy Lutsenko, a former interior minister who is now an opposition leader...

More here at RT.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 03:45 PM | Comments (381)
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Students of leftist excuse-making know that whenever things begin going downhill for the progressive cause, their advocates in the media offer the same two or three excuses:

1. My, this country is just ungovernable!

2. No single man could run a government this large! (Oh, and by the way: Let's make it larger still!)

And, of course:

3. The American Public is just too stupid to understand what's good for them and/or the American Public is just too stupid for this president or policy.

Politico Magazine trots out that decades-old line once more:

Are Our Brains Just Not Wired for Obamacare?

Since the launch of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges on Oct. 1, frequent glitches and long waits have dominated the news coverage. But these reports—while frustrating the Obama administration and delighting its opponents—distract from a far more important question: Are consumers doomed to make poor choices about health plans? Maybe our brains just aren’t wired to use a site like HealthCare.gov, whether it works or not.

"Whether it works or not." In other words: What does it matter if it works or not? We're too dumb to use it anyway.

Does a monkey care if a space shuttle is in good working order? All the monkey is going to do is crap on the console.

The exchanges are based on a laudable idea: that competition, transparency and consumer choice will lead to higher-quality, more affordable products. The decisions consumers make will thus have significant implications for their own personal and financial health, as well as the overall sustainability of the exchanges. But despite the good intentions behind the website, behavioral science research suggests that many consumers may be ill equipped to make good decisions in the insurance marketplaces.

After some sort of obvious stuff about too many choices leading to difficulty choosing, and people's incorrect estimates of the odds of low-probability events happening, he comes to his conclusion:

...

Americans are now making decisions about health coverage on an unprecedented scale. The insurance marketplaces may well make good on their promise of affordable, quality health coverage. But this will require setting aside our political biases, and addressing our psychological ones.

Got that, dummies? Put aside your political biases and your psychological hang-ups, Winger.

You'll also be happy to know the economy is in the tank because of your "fears" and "complaints," you fearful complainers.

How Complainers Wreck the Economy

omethingÂ’s wrong with the U.S. economy. We all know that. But maybe the real problem is us.

Anybody who follows economic polls is numb by now to the fact that Americans think everything is wrong.... Gloomy is the new normal.

...

It’s easy to disregard what’s going right and highlight nothing but the challenges we face—which seems to be a lot of people’s preference. But gloom itself may now be a bigger economic problem than any of the traditional ones. There’s no bellyacher index I’m aware of, but if you read between the lines, there does seem to be growing evidence that we believe things are worse than they are—and maybe even want to believe that.

In case you don't know who he's talking about: He means you conservative ideologues who believe, for some crazy reason, that unemployment is forbiddingly high, wages are not just stagnant but falling, and the labor participation rate is lower that it has been since the Great Depression.

HereÂ’s one example: Obamacare is obviously a hugely divisive issue that contributes to that wrong-track feeling a lot of people have. Consider this, though: Only 19% of American say the law has harmed them in any way...

Ah, the good side: Obama's only harming one fifth of the population.

"The goal has been met," then, I guess.

Let's skip to his conclusion.

There are plenty of Americans, needless to say, who havenÂ’t let a weak economy or a few disappointments slow them down. TheyÂ’re starting companies, doing deals, trying new things and in some cases making a lot of money. But are there enough of them to drag everybody else along? My guess is no. At some point, you either stop complaining and pick yourself up, or people stop hearing your complaints.

Notice that it's only under failing Democratic presidents that people have the onus of picking themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Under Republican presidents, every layoff is the president's fault, and the people have the right to expect -- nay, demand -- he rescue them from their every plight.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Comments (286)
Post contains 778 words, total size 5 kb.

MST3K "Space Mutiny" below the fold.

They're selling these. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 02:12 PM | Comments (83)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.