simple, follow the money...
Posted on 10/12/2014 5:06:02 AM PDT by SteveH
[....]
So why the changes and why did Washington and Nevada request and use tax payer funds to develop electronic tax credit technology if they “intended to use” the technology already developed by HHS?
There are two possibilities: Either HHS had decided it needed a tax credit calculator or it hadn’t. If it had – why didn’t it share this technology and collaborate with the states from Day One, which would have reduced the amount of tax funded grants? Also, a significant amount of the $4.8 billion awarded to states was allocated to develop tax credit calculator technology. Why had so much money been allocated to the states not only prior to May 2012 but also why did money continue to be awarded to the states? It doesn’t appear that awards were cancelled or award money returned because of a HHS developed tax credit calculator. Why not?
Also, what would have happened if HHS had asked the states to cancel their calculator development contracts and to return unused grant money? Would this have been a public admission that HHS had changed its interpretation of the law?
A logical and consistent narrative is now emerging.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at gotnews.com ...
Oh, I don’t know, more wealth redistribution to favored contractors/supporters?
Obamacare was developed as a a vehicle for consolidating Dummycrat power.....w/ a multi-billion dollar slush fund.
The Untraceable $8 Billion ObamaCare PR Budget---truly govt fraud at its finest. Egged on by Pelosi, no one in Congress told Americans about Section 4002---which mandates an $8B untraceable fund to "promote" Obamacare (apparently b/c Boobamba had so little confidence in his signature legislation).
In 2010 Taxpayers are extorted $500 million, in 2011, $750 million, 2012, $1 billion, 2013, $1.25 billion, 2014, $1.5 billion and in 2015 and on, $2 billion........
....the reasons for all those O/Care delays, fixits, exemptions, waivers, extensions, etc, are becoming crystal clear.
==============================================
CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN---REQUEST A COPY OF THIS All tax allocations are explicitly detailed in the Congressional Record as to their use and limitations, etc.
==============================================
KEEP IN MIND Obamacare is a HUGE voter fraud machine----plugging unsuspecting enrollees into Democrat voter rolls.
Local couple upset after receiving pre-marked voter registration card from "Covered California" (Cali O/Care)
10news | 03-29-2014 | Preston Phillips / FR Posted by Kevin in California
A local couple called 10News concerned after they received an envelope from the state's Obamacare website, Covered California. Inside was a letter discussing voter registration and a registration card pre-marked with an "x" in the box next to Democratic Party.
simple, follow the money...
I think a good portion of the problem lies in the public accepting the premise that “new technology” is needed to create something that adds subtracts multiplies and divides. IT management, particularly in government, is filthy with people who’ve never coded a single thing. If the people paying the bills are similarly computer ignorant, so long as the funding faucet is on, mistakes will continue to be made.
The point of the article is that May 3, 2012 is apparently a pivotal date in Obamacare history. It is the date at which states are required by contract with the federal government to use a (federal) healthcare.gov software module for calculating taxes and subsidies, thus providing the same taxes and subsidies under a federal exchange that the original law apparently limited exclusively to state exchanges— in apparent violation of Obamacare law. A problem is that the federal government had already given the states who opted to offer state exchanges money to develop the same functionality. However, rescinding the money grant was not an option because it would have meant explicitly admitting in public that the “new” (post May 3, 2012) interpretation of Obamacare law differed substantially from the “old” “original” interpretation of Obamacare law in regards to taxes and subsidies for state exchanges versus a federal exchange. [Besides that, no doubt some of the money was already spent on software and/or planning which at that point would need to be discarded due to the new requirement to use the federal software module.]
So around May 3, 2012 is the time when the Obama Administration changed its mind in regards to the issues brought forth by Halbig, King, and Pruitt, the Obamacare cases that now appear to be going in the direction of the USSC. Thus, the pre-May 3, 2012 contracts plus the May 3 2012 contracts taken collectively constitute evidence that the Obama Administration explicitly changed its interpretation of Obamacare law, which is something they deny doing in court briefings.
At least this is just my own layperson understanding of the article... YMMV...
BTTT
Oh, I don’t know, more wealth redistribution to favored contractors/supporters?
2 posted on Sunday, October 12, 2014 8:16:21 AM by Gen.Blather
in re: obamacare money trough, voter reg...
Thanks for the information Liz.
That topic deserves to be posted as a new thread here at FR. Many times.
Right now, we’re deluged with ebola scare-mongering stories; some real information would be a welcome change.
Considering the risk of backdoors, I would have authorized creating an independent software program as well.
Maybe the states wanted software that really works and is resistant to hackers.
Bookmark.
I have little doubt that at least some graft was involved in the dispensing of contracts to healthcare.gov tech service contractors. However, my layperson impression of graft is that it thrives best in the shadows-- not highlighted in contract change orders that do not make any technical sense. Therefore, at least to me, graft does not appear to be a likely motivation in this particular instance. So in this case, if that is correct, then it seems to me as if the Obama Administration was compelled to take the lesser evil of changing the contracts, tossing any work already performed, and the appearance of incompetence and potential graft over the alternative of paying large amounts of money for the development of multiple redundant software modules to perform the same task (cf "NIH," or "not invented here"-- a very well recognized disorder in software management).
...in addition to, of course, admitting via contract specifications that Obamacare customers in states that did not provide exchanges are legally excluded from receiving subsidies...
“Therefore, at least to me, graft does not appear to be a likely motivation in this particular instance.”
Therefore to me the first thing that came to mind was Mooshell’s college roommate..a VP or sumtin like that at the major contractor...
And those people in Missouri doing NUTTIN but punching the enter key each 1/2 hour..Nebraska too..
Contractors who were in the past incompetent, and/or past due on paying taxes !
As the Gal In Charge, Valerie said-—There’s gonna be hell to pay for those against us in the election....The Obumster sent half the nation to the back of the bus out of his personal spite for us and our country....
"Those Democrats leering over my shoulder owe me bigtime. This
healthcare bill insures we have a permanent Democratic majority."
"All except those Tea Party types, swallowed hook, line and sinker my promises that they could":
(1) keep their existing health plans,
(2) keep their own doctors that they like,
(3) keep their 25-year-olds on the family health plan,
(4) never be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition,
(5) sign up instantly on my tech-savvy government Web site,
(6) buy insurance only after becoming seriously ill."
(7) save $2,500 in annual premiums in the bargain....
(8) All without any new taxes.
"Them sonovagun Tea Partiers will rue the day they criticized my wonderful bill."
Again, if graft is the objective, then why issue multiple contradictory contracts? Multiple contradictory contracts just runs the risk of drawing undesirable public attention to the contracts-- something not in the best interests of graft beneficiaries.
I agree with the article's author that the most straightforward and by far most logical explanation is that the political sands shifted underneath the Obama Administration after the original contracts were issued but before the work product was due to be delivered, triggering both a re-interpretation of the law as originally passed by Congress and interpreted by the administration, and contract change orders in the form of revised/supplemental contracts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.