New Time Waster...

...Twitter.

I opened an account so I could Tweet when I put up a post.  Sadly, it got out of control in the last month, and I've spent a significant part of my time over there.

Which has to stop.  I stumbled into a potential money-making gig about a week and a half ago, and we met today to start getting our brains around it.  I walked away with a pretty good list of things I need to do.  In addition, I need to get some things sorted out at the office here at home in order to support what I'll be doing there.

Yes, I'm being deliberately vague about what it is.  I think we need to get the proverbial ducks lined up before I make a big to-do about it here.

But I'm optimistic about it.

And I'm saying the (Alan) Shepard's prayer, too.  A lot!

More as it develops.

Obamacare In Five Pictures

I was reading an article on Tech Crunch about the tech debacle that is Obamacare, lamenting how start-ups were ready to have a go at it.  It mentioned, in particular, eHealth, one of the few companies certified as a "web based entity" authorized to act as a alternative to government web sites.  I got curious, and here's what I discovered.

My options for this year:

They say starting at $52/month, but...

...79 plans, starting at $209.75/month.

My options for next year:

eHealth estimates that I would get a subsidy of $451.00/month.  (They caveat the hell out of their numbers, solet's take this figure as a SWAG* for now.)

Now, my premiums start (supposedly) at $192/month.

 

And I find a whopping thirteen plans, starting at $593.11/month, pre-subsidy.  Post-subsidy, $142.11/month

I have no idea where they got the $52 and $192 numbers.  After poking about a bit by changing ZIP codes, I found that they changed, but stayed the same when I changed birthdays.  In any case, what's important is the final cost to me.  And I didn't even try to figure out overall cost based on deductables, co-pays and such.

It's a bloody mess...

Whodunit

CNN's Jake Tapper is making a big to-do about a new memo from 9/14, that he says was mis-quoted to say the State's interest in the Benghazi talking point's were to be addressed in a weekend meeting.  He's busy mis-directing about the "mis-quotes", leaving the impression that the memo discredits the reporting on the issue.  It doesn't:

So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and more focused on the talking points, that the email actually stated.

I couldn't resist commenting:

"...significance seems to be..."?   Well, is it or isn't it?

This part:

"Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don't compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies."

doesn't persuade me that the talking points weren't changed. The real question about that is still "Who had them changed?" State? CIA? Oval Office? 

It's important we know. Go find out, and report back.

I neglected to ask about the redacted part.  Sorry.

His column here.

Memo here.

Major linkage about talking points at Pundette!