The Affordable Care Web Site

I think some of you don't understand - politicians are NOT managers, they're politicians.  In their own businesses, they usually hire managers.  They're idea people.  They're publicity people.

So, apparently, the PPACA (the Affordable Healthcare Act) web site, is a mess.  I don't know because I just applied for Medicare so it doesn't really apply to me.

However, yelling and pawning off the mess to the President and his party doesn't solve the problem.  Yes, ultimately, he's responsible; he's at the helm, so to speak.  But, I'm guessing he knows little about production and this is a production problem.

Somebody was delegated the responsibility of drawing up the specifications for the web site.  If not, well, somebody was delegated the responsibility of figuring out how the system has to work.  In one way or another, someone or a team of people are responsible for how the system is supposed to work and how the web site makes that possible.  They failed.  Apparently they more than failed, they didn't even work out rational procedures to be translated into the web site.

This is, unfortunately, not all that uncommon.  I recently wrote a rather nasty to our state (New Jersey) pension fund about their web site which kept taking me in circles; never to arrive at the page I needed to get to.  Somebody was paid to create that web site and somebody was hired to create the PPACA web site.  Unless the procedures have been laid out, in detail, before the web site design is designed, the web site will NOT and CANNOT work properly.

Sit down.  Think of the steps necessary to boil an egg - from getting the pan out of the cupboard and the egg out of the refrigerator.  Unless you start from the beginning, step by step, if you write down those steps and give them to someone who's unfamiliar with a kitchen or a stove, they won't be able to complete the task.  Then translate those step-by-step instructions to forms and online instructions and programmed computer routines and you have a tiny idea of why the PPACA web site isn't working.

Someone was responsible for ensuring that all necessary steps in applying for Affordable Care was translated into the web site.  If the specifications that were given to the web designers were insufficient, the contractors are not necessarily responsible.

I just sent messages to the White House, to my House rep, to my Senator and Senator Elect about this matter.  There are 2 questions that need to be asked and answered first:

Who was responsible for writing the RFP for the project?  

(RFP - request for proposal, generally the specifications required and desired in any project, written and distributed to interested contractors who then write a proposal to meet those requirements and specifications and their proposed charges to provide those specifications.)

Whoever was responsible for writing the specs, is the first individual(s) to call on the carpet for the mess the web site seems to be.

We've heard reports that the site is supposed to handle 50,000 applications a day.  That is clearly insufficient for the demand and SOMEBODY should have known that.

You can be sure the President didn't write the specs.  I'm guessing he wouldn't begin to know how.  He delegated that responsibility to SOMEBODY. Who was it?  That person, after thorough debriefing and hearing, HAS TO BE FIRED.

I've been fired for, more or less, nothing.  I always did my job, I never didn't do my job, I wasn't perfect but I did my job pretty well.  Whoever was responsible for writing the specs for the web site didn't.

Second, has the contractor been paid?  They had better not have been.  You never, Never, NEVER pay a contractor unless and until the project has been completed satisfactorily.  There is always an upfront payment for time, materials, etc. that is part of the contract.  The contract must state that final payment depends on satisfactory completion of the project.

However, if the contractor has, in fact complete the project as specked out by whoever wrote the specs, WE are accountable to pay the contractor.  If the specs said the site has to be capable of taking 50,000 applications a day, and that's what it can do, then the contractor has fulfilled their end of the contract, even though the specifications are crap.  

Generally, a good contractor, who knows the business of what the project is for, will see such idiotic specifications and alert the client who will then rewrite the specifications.

I've written RFPs.  Generally, I solicit the advice of colleagues who have completed similar projects.  I read articles and books on completing similar projects.  I talk to contractors who have completed similar projects.  I attend workshops about related projects.  I take notes and draw charts along the way.  I send my notes out to many I've already talked to for their feedback.   

There are many reasons why large projects like this go wrong:

• The person who delegated the project has failed to monitor those to whom the project was delegated.
• The person(s) to whom the project was delegated is incompetent.
• The person(s) to whom the project was delegated doesn't care if the project is satisfactorily or not.
• The person(s) to whom the project was delegated didn't write an RFP but just called familiar contractors to discuss the particulars of the project, then hired one or more of them, leaving there no way to hold them accountable.
• The project specs didn't include procedures for monitoring and evaluating the completion of steps and features.
• The contract didn't include a punch list for completion.
• The contract didn't include procedures in the event of contingencies.
• The contractor had nothing to work with to guide his/their work except their own experience which may or may not have been relevant to the project needs.
• The contractor didn't follow specs, cut corners, etc., etc.

In this case, I suspect that last is NOT the case.  I suspect that the project was managed by someone who either didn't care enough or didn't now how to manage such a project.  A project like this really needs a team of experts to draw up the various aspects of the system, procedures, criteria, etc.  I suspect that the 3 years of the project were mostly filled with phone calls and that whomever was responsible for carrying out the project and others involved did NOT have dedicated responsibility for it.  A project like this, required ALL the time of everyone working on it until it's complete.

Unhappily, it's my observation that public contracts are paid, regardless of whether or not the project is completed satisfactorily.  It happens because the specifications for the project were not written clearly enough and the contractor has a case for completion.  It happens because the contract doesn't have sufficient legal language to protect the public from incompetent or unethical contractors.  

Each payment, other than an initial start-up payment, the % of which should be specified in the contract, must be tied to satisfactorily completion of a piece of the project and the evaluative criteria and process clearly specified for each step.

I've been out of work for 2 1/2 years and the dummies working on the PPACA project were all, undoubtedly, paid very well for giving us this mess, for which WE paid a great deal.  Go figure.

A Flaw in the System

A serious flaw in the make up of our government, pointed out indirectly on the McLaughlin Group tonight:  the the President is the president of the entire country but that Speaker Boehner, a Republican, only represents his constituents and party stance.  

Really?!  

Once in office and voting on decisions on NATIONAL policy, party ideology needs to disappear.  And, as Speaker of the House, with members of the opposing party, he has a responsibility to the entire House membership.

Another reason for the dissolution of political parties.  

If political parties disappeared from the process, ideologies would continue but in greater diversity and the aim would be for all points of view to come together in order to fit as many pieces of all of those ideologies into a more comprehensive framework for all of us.  We need to get away from this idea of  one side gets to win at the expense of the other just because - this time - they're in the majority.

Think about this jerking back and forth between the 2 MAJOR parties we've been living with; how has it benefited the country?  It's a little like the card game, War.  At some point one player wins nearly the entire deck and sudden the game shifts the other player wins back and the deck is nearly all his.  This can continue for a very long time with little resolution or conclusion often ending when both players are bored.  It's a waste of time and pointless.  It's really a stupid game.

The Constitution needs to be reviewed with an eye toward inclusion, toward consensus and away from "majority rule" which by definition and result means the exclusion of large numbers of the citizenry who's "party" loses this time around.  It's based on winners and losers; on competition rather than on cooperation.

It's a major flaw in the system.

Accepting the inevitable breadth and depth of diversity among the population, it's much more sensible to address that diversity by attempting to governing to include the diversity.  The citizenry is a large conglomeration of unique, diverse individuals.  We're not cut out with cookie cutters.  If you look at 5 individual citizens; at their philosophical, religious, political, spiritual points of view, their family make up, their socio/economic situation, their intelligence, their dreams and wishes, you will not find any 2 the same.

This desire to fit the entire population into a handful of categories, depending on an issue, is laziness, ignorance and foolishness.  Just think of the people you work with.  There are shy people, outgoing people; there are intelligent people, less intelligent people; there are pleasant people and unpleasant people; there are skillful people and barely competent people; there are industrious people and very lazy people; and everything in between and in all of these in various combinations.  That's just your workplace.  We're talking about an entire country of nearly 317 million individuals.  And, we try to fit them into 2 political boxes?

Duh!

Definition of this post - (don't worry I'll cover all the political ideologies)

liberal - (www.merriam-webster.com) 

1.  a :  of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberaleducation>

b archaic :  of or befitting a man of free birth

2

a :  marked by generosity :  openhanded <a liberal giver>

b :  given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <aliberal meal>

c :  ample, full

3

obsolete :  lacking moral restraint :  licentious

4

:  not literal or strict :  loose <a liberal translation>

5

:  broad-minded; especially :  not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6

a :  of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism

b capitalized :  of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism;especially :  of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

My definition 1.  is 2.

New Product

Antics in the House of Representatives

Yesterday, Saturday, I saw a news item online that a vote was going to take place in the House to end the shutdown.  I ran downstairs and turned on the TV to CSPAN which gives live coverage of various government and organizational operations.  Not much commentary; you decide for yourself what to think about what's going on.

Unhappily, no vote.

What I saw was so disgusting, so disturbing, so infuriating that I've been emailing, posting, etc. since.  

Today, about half an hour ago, ad of this writing, I read that Republican Representative Rob Portman of Ohio has expressed the opinion that the shutdown will be ended by Thursday. He also expressed the opinion that "Obamacare", the Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be repealed because most of the country doesn't want it.

I'm afraid I think he's completely deluded.  It's a law.  I will post the text of the email I sent him below.

It's interesting that those opposed to the PPACA are continuing this "fight" now that implementation is underway.  I believe that it's just symptomatic of the central focus of the GOP to obstruct anything and everything that the President proposes, for no other reason that to do so.

Anyone who thinks that a law that has been passed by both houses, signed by the President, been reviewed by the Supreme Court, should be repealed before it is implemented is severely stupid and irresponsibility.  It was passed.  It needs to be given at least 3 years from implementation to give it sufficient time to work out bugs, etc. before any action to repeal it is taken.  But, this isn't about the PPACA, it's about trying to prevent the President from succeeding in making a positive contribution while in office.  Why would anyone want to do that?  It's not just about party politics.  Think.  What have they been trying to say about the President all along.

This is about some ugly, dirty agenda that certain members of our Congress have - but I'll get back to that.

Here's what I saw yesterday:  First I have to say that I'm a terrible citizen and do not know the details of how our government works as well as I, and you, should.  After all, if our government is supposed to be of, by and for us, then we should be actively involved and informed to ensure our "representatives" our representing us.

I saw someone officiating, not Representative Boehner.  I'm sorry to say, I don't know how that procedure is handled.  Someone was yielding his time to various members of the House, all of which seemed to be House Democrats asking for unanimous consent to move a vote to end the shutdown.  I do know a little Parliamentary procedure, having worked for a number of public boards and sitting on several public committees and having been a member of various organizations.  I did have to look up unanimous consent, however.  These members were simply asking the House to vote to end the shutdown without objection to the vote.

Now what's so strange or bad about that?  Well, the vote to end the shut down involves passing the C.R., continuing resolution.  Continuing resolutions become necessary when the annual spending bill is NOT passed.  The federal budget calendar runs from October 1 to September 30, so if a new annual budget is not passed by September 30, the government risks shutdown unless C.R.s, continuing resolutions are passed by Congress (the House).  The C.R. generally means continuing the budget, as appropriated, per department, for a particular period of time.  However, this House, at this time, refused to pass the budget, or the C.R. unless and until the PPACA is defunded.

Remember the PPACA was enacted into law.  It has begun implementation, though shakily.  Now, Congress wants to defund it.  Does that seem intelligent or kosher or prudent?  Not to me.

These calls for a vote were met with the identical response each time, that "... that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance."  This means that the call for a vote was not being allowed because it did not have the appropriate clearance, according to House Rules.  There was clearly no intention of letting the vote happen, regardless of the fact that the law had been enacted and monies had been spend toward the implementation.

In the midst of this appeal for a vote, there was a break and a delegation of House Democrats appeared to say that they were bringing a petition to the floor, hoping to get enough signatures, from both parties to force the vote.  I haven't read the House Rules on this procedure but they assured the viewing public that it was an acceptable procedure.

After the break, a member of the House posed a Parliamentary question, as I understood it, regarding a question of privilege (meaning the rights of members of the House), in that the requests for unanimous consent to call for a vote to end the shutdown were being denied.  The speaker brought enlargements of Rule XXII, and section 4 of that rule which states:  "When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged."  I believe the disagreement referred to is on the amendment to defund PPACA.  

At this point, the revelation occurred that said House Rule XXII, Section 4 had been changed as of October 1, 2013.  Privilege, as I understand it, in this case, means that any member of the house may bring the motion to dispose of said amendment and call for a vote to end the shutdown.  However, the change made on October 1 was that ONLY the Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, or his designee, could bring such a motion to the floor of the House.  He was, of course, absent, and no designee was apparently present or made.  [which is more than irresponsible].  This was the meaning that the requests for a vote could "not be entertained absent appropriate clearance", meaning ONLY Eric Cantor could approve such a motion.  One man had been given complete control of this decision -- completely undemocratic.

Now, I was unable to find the action enacting this change and I was unable to find an up-to-date edition, online, of the House Rules reflecting this change.  This is an unacceptable situation.  As a citizen, I expect government documents to be available.  I don't know how these changes are made and will probably not make the time to discover that process.

The other thing that is unacceptable is that, apparently, the House Democrats seemed completely unaware that this change had been made.  How is that possible?  Are they not members of the House.  Is the process such that members of the House are not aware of such changes that affect ALL members of the House?  Certainly, the possibility that changes in House Rules can be made without ALL members participating in the decision to make such changes is COMPLETELY undemocratic and unacceptable and inexcusable -- even treasonous, in my book.  If this change was made in a democratic manner, with the participation of ALL members of the House, then the House Democrats are completely remiss in not only not knowing about the change but in not anticipating its consequences and in participating and accepting the change.

So, here we are, the Rules have been fixed to prevent any action.  The House is clearly holding the President hostage in order to repeal the PPACA which is not their job to do not their prerogative.  In the midst of these antics, I heard individuals speaking outright lies.  I heard palming off the blame on the President.  I heard individuals espousing a form of fundamentalist "Christianity" as the end toward which they were moving.  I heard grown men whining and baiting and cheating and acting like snotty children.  I did NOT hear reason.  I did NOT hear interest in the interests of the American people. I did NOT hear professionalism.  I did NOT hear humility.

While individual House Representative are elected by constituents in their districts, once in office and voting and making decisions on national issues, they must understand that their actions affect ALL Americans, many who may not have their point of view.  I have been sending messages to the Speaker of the House and other members of government over the past few days expressing my wishes and point of view.  I feel quite strongly that the time for courtesy and deference toward our elected officials, on all levels, is over. They are our employees. They're not doing their jobs.

My email to Representative Rob Portman:  "It doesn't matter that I'm not one of your "constituents" because, once any of you are in office and making decisions affecting the entire country, all of the rest of us have a right and a responsibility to contact you and weigh in.  I'm 64, soon be be 65, never married, female, Independent, a mother and grandmother, a professional, highly intelligent, highly educated and completely disgusted with all of you in D.C.

I've just read that you believe that there will be an agreement about the debt ceiling that the shutdown by Thursday.  I certainly hope so.  This NEVER should have happened in the first place.  This is NOT about the Affordable Care Act, this is about the irresponsible reneging on our fiscal obligations and trying to blame that action on the President's refusal to "negotiate" about a law that was passed and about to be implemented.  We The People owe what you the federal government en masse have obligated us to, regardless of what the GOP and the disgusting Tea Partiers think about the Affordable Care Act. 

You are absolutely incorrect that the majority of the country is NOT in favor of the Affordable Care Act.  The only people who are against it are the ignorant, delusional and those living in the past, before we had a black president.

I expect a CLEAN C.R. resolution to be passed ASAP.  And, having been responsible for many public budgets; this is no way to operate a budget or run anything.  You've ALL forgotten what you're there for - not to force fundamentalist "Christian" values down our throats; not to tell us spend all your time and our money obstructing a president that the GOP doesn't approve of; not to try to WIN the 2 party playoffs (I wish both parties would disappear); you're all there to work to make our lives as comfortable, as INDIVIDUAL citizens with our own values, our own agendas, our own beliefs, our own aims.  I, for one, don't need any of you to make any decisions for me, I'm only stuck with all of you.  I'm smarter, kinder, more generous, more understanding, more inclusive than any of you that I've witnessed so far, particularly members of the GOP.  Your values fall away in the face of defeat.  I watched Republican members of the House outright lie, in public, on national television to the American People to maintain this idiocy.  I watched in amazement revelation of the change to Rule XXII that the House Dems seemed to be unaware of, that blocks any democratic functioning of the House, then to find that I can't find the passage of that change anywhere online, including on the House web site or in the 2 clearly outdated, online editions of the House Rules.  It's treasonous.

You're not there to legislate an ideology, and while I'm not in your electing district, if you don't see that in your votes on national issues, you have a clear responsibility to me, you shouldn't be in any public office."

Looks like I have some lapses in the text but that's OK, he'll get the idea.

The GOP, specifically the Tea Party agenda, as I see it, to come....