�鶹Ů��

According to the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general, between $800 million and $1.7 billion has been or will be spent to develop HealthCare.gov. Even if the website turns out to be more functional than it was last year, one significant problem remains: The ObamaCare website is still not fully secure. Independent agencies such as the Government Accountability Office and the HHS inspector general have warned of continued security problems. This is concerning for Americans, as HealthCare.gov houses vast amounts of sensitive personal enrollment information—from full, legal names, to Social Security numbers, dates of birth and even income information. (Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., 11/14)

Ahead of the Affordable Care Act open-enrollment period beginning Saturday, the Obama administration announced its projections for enrollment in the ACA marketplaces. By its forecasts, 9.1 million to 9.9 million people would enroll, fewer than the 13 million projected by the Congressional Budget Office in its budget forecast. There are 7.1 million people enrolled now. The questions that arose this week: Is one number right or wrong? Was the administration lowering expectations? The best answer here, simply put, is that there is no right number, that one estimate is as good as the other, and that enrollment is very hard to predict. (Drew Altman, 11/15)

But there will be changes to the health-care law in the Republican-controlled Congress. The nature and scope of those adjustments will have important implications for health care and politics. ... There is danger for Obama in how all this plays out. Some changes could severely undermine the president's signature domestic-policy achievement. That would also carry risk for Republicans, however. The public tends to express a negative view of the Affordable Care Act, but individual provisions of the law are gaining support. In a decidedly Republican midterm electorate this month, voters nationally and in battleground states were divided between those who said Obamacare went too far and those who said it was just right or didn't go far enough. (Albert R. Hunt, 11/16)

The all-too-candid MIT economist is not likely to have a hard time paying for his own health care—Mr. Gruber reportedly received $400,000 for advising the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act. But he is having a hard time explaining his unguarded comments about the law. His views may be obnoxious, but Mr. Gruber has performed a public service by finally telling the truth about ObamaCare and providing a glimpse of the mind-set of those who foisted it on the country. The American people are smart enough to see Mr. Gruber and the Affordable Care Act for what they are. (Tevi Troy, 11/16)

As a rule, Americans don’t like to be called “stupid,” as Jonathan Gruber is discovering. Whatever his academic contempt for voters, the ObamaCare architect and Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his candor about the corruption of the federal budget process. (11/14)

Gruber's comments, made over the last several years, reveal a disdain for the American voter (whom he described as stupid) and for people's ability to understand the policy discussions that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist and his fellow liberal wonks engaged in when they crafted the Affordable Care Act. But none of us should be surprised by his perspective. Liberal thinkers and policy-makers have never believed that individuals can manage their own health care. This is why they’ve said government should be involved in even our most basic health-care decisions, such as what benefits an insurance plan must include. (Lanhee Chen, 11/14)

Hopes for expanding Medicaid — an important goal of the Affordable Care Act — suffered a blow in the midterm elections. Several Republican governors who oppose expansion held on to their offices in close races and Republicans tightened their grip on state legislatures, which often have the final say on whether to expand. While some states might still improve their versions of Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for insuring the poor, the odds have grown longer. (11/14)

By expanding insurance access, the ACA has the potential to be a great equalizer, to make the U.S. a country in which where you live doesn't determine your healthiness. But we're not there yet, as I am reminded when I think about my sister in Virginia. A months-long political battle there fizzled out in September with no real progress on Medicaid expansion. So in a few weeks, I'll make sure my sister gets enrolled in a plan through healthcare.gov. But even if she qualifies for premium subsidies, it will be beyond her financial reach, which is why expanding Medicaid is such an important component of the Affordable Care Act. (Judy Belk, 11/15)

News articles often describe Truvada, the daily medication that has been shown to greatly reduce the risk of contracting H.I.V., as controversial. But they tend to cite one specific Truvada opponent: Michael Weinstein, the outspoken president of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation. ... Mr. Weinstein shows up in lots of news articles about Truvada in part because he runs a large H.I.V.-care organization, and in part because he gives colorful quotes. But he also shows up because he and the foundation stand more or less alone within the world of H.I.V.-prevention groups in their skepticism about PrEP. (Josh Barro, 11/16)

A defining feature of Republican economic policy for decades has been its benefits for the well off. The stated goals of that policy have been to shrink government and lift economic growth, but the main method has been cutting taxes much more for high-income families than others. At the same time, the party has opposed an expansion of health insurance for low- and middle-income families, increases in the minimum wage and college financial aid and extensions of jobless benefits. ... One of the most intriguing questions heading into the 2016 presidential campaign is how serious Republicans are about trying to change this situation. (David Leonhardt, 11/15)