Eric Kuvykin business
branding, consulting, marketing and restructures. The opinions
expressed are those of the writer. Mr Eric Kuvykin is a business
professional and consultant. The opinion of Mr Eric Kuvykin is a only an
opinion.www.erickuvykin.com
Hackers can't get much from the Obamacare site. Apparently neither can anyone else.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
The
Obamacare website's coding errors and security holes have raised
concerns about the kind of information that could be stolen if and when the site
were hacked.
How much was spent on this site? $634 Million... next blog on the $634 Mil.....
The fact is: Not much of any value. Healthcare.gov is not the treasure chest of personal information some make it out to be.
Hijacking the account of Obamacare applicants would
yield their addresses, birth dates and phone numbers. (Until last week,
getting that would have been relatively easy, because of very sloppy coding that left some of the site's communication unencrypted.)
Although that's discomforting, that's where the flow of information
ends. The government isn't actually selling insurance -- private
companies are. So, if you trust private insurers with your data now,
there's no reason to believe that would change because they're selling
insurance to Obamacare applicants.
Put bluntly, you don't have
to worry that hackers can now target a creepy database that stores all
of your health information. It doesn't exist.
Congressional Republicans have also argued that holes in the Obamacare
website could make applicants' information stored on other government
sites more vulnerable to attack.
That's because the newly
created federal services data hub connects the Obamacare exchanges with
databases at the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense,
IRS, Office of Personnel Management, Peace Corps, Social Security
Administration and Veterans Health Administration. The exchanges connect
with the other agencies to verify your identity when you apply for
insurance on Healthcare.gov.
In reality, the data hub isn't a
target because it's not even a physical entity, and it doesn't store
information. It's akin to an old phone switchboard that accepts calls
and reroutes them, Health and Human Services Department officials say.
Security consultants say it's well designed -- and guarded. Breaking in
to the hub would prove a formidable task, because it's under constant
surveillance by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Even
if it is hacked, attackers will find nothing but encrypted messages
leading to locked boxes.
"While Healthcare.gov
has the world's largest target painted on its back with regards to the
quantity and quality of information it can access, the data is largely
secure," said Chester Wisniewski, a senior advisor at security provider.
"Our original plan was canceled. We were recently informed that our
monthly health insurance premiums would increase from $627 to $1,350 in
order to keep similar coverage. The increase is due to both adding a
child and ACA requirements, but our plan without the third child would
be $1,147."
If only this was just a Halloween trick. It is NOT.
Visitors trying to log on
to the Obamacare website Thursday morning saw the same stubborn phrase
that has roiled users for weeks: "The system is down at the moment." How much di they spend on this site? Who built it? I think we all know for $25,000 anyone could have hire a developer and would have a functioning site.
For almost a
month since the HealthCare.gov website launched (somewhat launched), riddled with technical
problems despite a series of advance warning signs. And even after a
chorus of apologies out of Washington, it may be another several month before
everything's running smoothly.
Vice President Joe Biden became the highest-ranking administration official to apologize Wednesday for the botched rollout.
"We assumed that it was
up and ready to run," he told CNN's sister network HLN. "But the good
news is although it's not -- and we apologize for that -- we are
confident by the end of November it will be, and there'll still be
plenty of time for people to register and get online." First they create a useless plan only to be followed by a useless site. What is wrong with this administration?
Obamacare site down for Sebelius hearing
Sebelius apologizes for website flaws
Key players in the health care hearings
Secy. Sebelius in the hot seat
That mea culpa came after
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius apologized for
the "miserably frustrating" problems during a 3 1/2-hour congressional
grilling. She said she made a mistake when she told President Barack
Obama that HealthCare.gov was "ready to go" for its October 1 launch.
Sebelius promised a "vast
majority" of consumers will have an easier time shopping online for
health insurance under Obamacare by the end of November.
"In these early weeks,
access to HealthCare.gov has been a miserably frustrating experience for
way too many Americans, including many who have waited years, in some
cases their entire lives, for the security of health insurance,"
Sebelius said.
She echoed the overall administration stance -- that a team of experts is scrambling to fix the website's errors.
To the frustrated users
who have had problems, she said: "You deserve better. I apologize. I'm
accountable to you for fixing these problems."
Biden said he didn't even bother logging on to the Obamacare site.
"Actually, the President
tried to get online, and my daughter tried to get online," he said. "I
did not, because it was clear that I was not getting online."
Obama himself acknowledged that too many people "have gotten stuck, and I am not happy about it."
"There's no excuse for it," the President said. "And I take full responsibility for making sure it gets fixed ASAP."
Glass half full?
Sebelius said the
sweeping health care program has delivered on its promise to provide
affordable health care coverage. Thousands have been able to access the
website to look at new health coverage options that will give them
security of knowing they won't go bankrupt if they get sick, she said.
Republicans have called
for Sebelius to be fired for the Obamacare problems, but a White House
spokesman said Wednesday that Obama has "complete confidence" in her.
"She took responsibility
for many of the problems that are evident with the (Obamacare) website,
but she also deserves credit for the other aspects of the Affordable
Care Act implementation that have gone well," spokesman Josh Earnest
told reporters.
In fact, Obama tried to
turn the tables on Republican opponents of his signature health care
reforms, challenging them to come up with helpful ideas instead of
undermining the federal law.
"Anyone defending the
remnants of the old, broken system -- as if it was working for people --
anybody who thinks we shouldn't finish the job of making the health
care system work for everybody ... those folks should have to explain
themselves," he said.
According to the Kaiser
Family Foundation website, 15.4 million people had individual health
care coverage in 2011, representing about 5% of the population. The vast
majority of Americans have coverage through their employer, Medicare,
Medicaid or other public providers.
White House spokesman
Jay Carney said Tuesday that "a significant portion" of the 5% of people
with individual coverage will end up paying less for better policies
when they shop around in the new exchanges.
Early warning signs
Some of the criticism
surrounding the website's launch has to do with what Obama and other
officials knew -- and when they knew it.
CNN has learned the
administration received stark warnings a month before the launch that
the Obamacare site was not ready to go live, according to a confidential
report. The caution, from the main contractor CGI Federal, warned of
risks and issues for HealthCare.gov, even as company executives were
testifying publicly the project was on track.
Sebelius told the House
committee the outside contractors who built the website never
recommended delaying this month's launch. But she conceded that "we did
not adequately do end-to-end testing."
The contracts with the
private companies working on the Obamacare website -- which amount to
$174 million so far, with more bills due well into 2014 --do
not have "built-in penalties" allowing her department to charge them
for disappointing or faulty work, Sebelius said. But Sebelius said the
agency will not pay for incomplete work.
Security questions
Republican Rep. Mike
Rogers of Michigan, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, accused
Sebelius of putting the private information of Americans at risk by
failing to properly test security measures on the website.
"This is a completely unacceptable level of security," he said. "You know it's not secure."
Sebelius responded that
testing occurs regularly, and she told Rogers she would get back to him
on whether any end-to-end security test of the entire system has ever
occurred. Rogers said he knows there have been no such comprehensive
security tests.
An internal government
memo obtained by CNN on Wednesday that was written days before the
website launched warned of a "high" security risk because of a lack of
testing.
"Due to system readiness
issues, the (security control assessment) was only partly completed,"
said the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services memo. "This
constitutes a risk that must be accepted and mitigated to support the
Marketplace Day 1 operations."
Sebelius told CNN last
week that Obama didn't know of the problems with the site -- even though
insurance companies had complained and the site crashed during a
pre-launch test run -- until after it went live.
A senior administration
official said Obama now gets a "nightly readout" with the latest
Obamacare statistics and an update of the website's status.
Guaranteed to be one of the funniest things you will ever read!
What am I doing wrong?
Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful
(spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy.
I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at
least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind
that a million a year is middle class in New York City , so I don't
think I'm overreaching at all.
Are there any guys who make 500K or
more on this board? Any wives? Could
you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around
100 - 150. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 150,000 won't get
me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was
married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as
pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right?
How do I get to her level?
Here are my questions specifically:
- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms
-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my feelings
-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?
-
Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east
side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have
nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead
gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story
there?
- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer,
investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where
do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?
- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for
MARRIAGE ONLY
Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out
there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least
I'm being up front about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of
guys if I wasn't able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication,
and keeping a nice home and hearth.
--------------------
THE ANSWER
Dear Pers-:
I read your posting with great interest and have thought
meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your
predicament. Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who
fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said
here's how I see it.
Your offer, from the prospective of a guy
like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. Here's why. Cutting
through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring
your looks to the party and I bring
my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my
money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely
that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't
be getting any more beautiful!
So, in economic terms you are a
depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a
depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain,
you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but
less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!
So in Wall Street terms, we
would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold...hence the
rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which
is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case you think I'm being
cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would
you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's as simple as that. So
a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.
Separately, I
was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a
girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful" as you has
been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if
you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn't found you,
if not only for a tryout.
By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.
With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump." I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of
lease, let me know.
____________
RNC Chairman: 'The President lied'
Sebelius: 'Hold me accountable'
Obamacare under fire
Posts
