Medicaid Fair Hearings In Georgia; Medicaid Lawyer; Medicaid Attorney. Medicaid: Fill & Download for Free

These states, as of Jan 2019, have rejected ObamaCare since its inception in 2014:AlabamaFloridaGeorgiaKansasMississippiMissouriNorth CarolinaOklahoma—this is my state of residenceSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasWisconsinWyomingI’ll just touch on my state, Oklahoma, and how it was affected.Since 2010, we’ve lost 90 hospitals. In a state of our size, that’s a lot. That’s a lot of skilled labor let go of their jobs; a lot of patients needing new care and facilities; a lot of BS.Oklahomans are paying for Medicaid expansion (Obamacare) but the legislatures stubbornness means they can’t use it. WAIT, WHAT?!!?Why are we paying for something that we rejected? We struck down that black mans illegal tax, right?Write this down—publicize it if you live in one of the aforementioned states.RESIDENTS OF THESE 14 STATES—YOUR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING USED TO FUND MEDICAID EXPANSION IN OTHER STATES. ZERO EXPANSION FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE ACA ARE COMING BACK TO YOUR STATE. FROM 2013–2022, $152 billion IN FED TAXES WILL BE COLLECTED FROM YOU, AND PAID TO MEDICAID EXPANSION IN OTHER STATES.Does this seem fair? No.$305 billion is what OKLAHOMA alone is missing out on…the ACA pays 9–1 tax dollars for those states that accept ObamaCare. In other words, for every dollar Oklahoma spends on Medicaid anyway—they would get back that amount TIMES 9!! WTF? How?The penalty for not signing up (which is a penalty for being ignorant)—is the mandate tax that we always hear about. Why should I pay a fine for NOT having health insurance? It’s my CHOICE to not have it. Really? Really?? I bet that choice is because A) your employer doesn’t offer it, and B) it wasn’t affordable.I agree that being penalized for this was a little overboard….but consider the alternative: health insurance is attained. This cuts down on uninsured debt (53 billion unpaid overdue health care bills in Oklahoma 2017). No wonder hospitals closed down. With more insured citizens= more hospital visits = more staff and facilities= economic growth.So in a nutshell, it’s like this: SIGN UP FOR MEDICAID EXPANSION, GET BACK $9 for every $1 YOU SPEND.DONT SIGN UP, AND PAY A TAX/PENALTY FOR BEING IGNORANT, AND WELL GIVE THAT TO THOSE STATES THAT DO ACCEPT IT.Seem like a no brained? Yep. Where do I sign? Oh wait, I can’t. My states on that list.This list has reduced from 19 just a few month ago. Why did 5 states wake up? Why is yours still asleep on your healthcare?

I asked this question in November. I feel like writing an answer myself. The short answer, for me, to this question is “yes.” But I’d like to elaborate.The press and TV news are already all in a tizzy about 2020. After covering NO issues of substance during the 2016 election – they just concentrated on the horse race, while also obligingly relaying the wiki leaks nonsense provided by Putin and Trump and Assange every night – CNN and the rest are impatiently hollering about the next horse race: It’s Beto ahead by a nose! And Biden 2% behind him in this poll, and 4% behind him in that poll …But the Fourth Estate has a responsibility to the public: to provide us with enough information to make an informed choice during an election. They should talk about candidates’ policy goals, and past histories, and encourage people to think, hard, about what it would mean to have one person or another in the White House. At no time during the 2016 election did CNN say: There have been nine debates and three town halls with Democratic candidates. Here are highlights showing what Hillary wants to do about the college debt crisis, and what Bernie wants to do, and the plan each of them has to raise the minimum wage. Or: Now that Hillary’s the candidate, here’s her plan on those subjects, plus green energy, plus prison reform, plus universal free pre-K for four-year-olds … and here’s what Donald Trump’s campaign says he’ll do on those issues …Never did they report on actual policy. Not one night. Not one hour. And that’s a real shame. So, if our major media won’t responsibly cover serious topics for us, we need to do it for ourselves.The media are conducting polls now, and chattering excitedly about people topping them. The people topping the polls have name recognition, rather than specific plans. There are lots of Americans wistfully wishing Michelle Obama would run, though she has never shown an inclination to get involved with the intricacies of nation and international policy (as a few First Ladies, like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Rodham Clinton, did), or Oprah, because she’s Oprah. Many people respond to Joe Biden, I’d argue, because he’s a former VP, and they know his history of personal tragedy. Yet when Biden ran for president several times – he did not appeal to me or to many others who saw him interviewed and saw him debate. Biden can be brave, and can say eye-opening, good things – and he can also say and do quite off-putting and odd things. The recent Kavanaugh hearings reminded us of how he behaved during the confirmation hearings on Clarence Thomas, and it’s not a terribly fond memory. All in all, he’s a good man, but a strange duck, and neither his record nor his personal qualities shout out to me that he should be the candidate.I think some people gravitating toward Bernie or Biden want a Great White Father to come in and undo the chaos of the present moment. I have to say, the way the 2016 election played out has cured me of any leanings I may ever have had toward a supposedly wise, older, patriarchal Great White Father figure … That doesn’t mean I’d never support such a candidate, but it’s sure not something I think we need for its own sake, in an Age of Trump!Hillary lacked charisma as a speaker at rallies, and made mistakes in her campaign. But I watched her nine debates against Sanders and their three town halls. I thought they both spoke well and had mostly reasonable positions, and those exchanges were, God knows, more sane and substantive than the Republican debates. I also thought that she won them, again and again, as she went on to win all three debates against Trump. Their (her and Bernie’s) positions on most issues were not all that different, but hers contained more detail and more depth of field, and practical plans for how to get things done. I think her performance in those debates was a factor in Hillary getting nearly four million more votes than Bernie got in the Democratic primaries. It’s amazing to me how few people realize that – that they debated nine times, and that Hillary got almost four million more votes. Again, if the media did their job, more people would know. But I was not impressed by how Bernie behaved: how he put off conceding for months after it was clear he had no path to the nomination – and then the pouty, grudging, dishonest concession speech he finally gave: “She has more delegates than I do, and more super-delegates!” Yeah, dude, and she also creamed you, when it came to primary voters … Bernie didn’t mention that part. He created a false impression in the minds of his supporters that he had more votes, and I’d say he did it deliberately. Shame on him for that.By treating Hillary, throughout 2016 , as someone corrupt and suspect, someone he and his supporters had to “force” to do the right thing by getting tough with her campaign, which tried to work with him, and “holding their feet to the fire,” Bernie set the stage for Trump, Putin and Assange to sow division among Democrats, and to spread false rumors in bogus social media posts, and to cause Bernie people to wig out and wreck the Democratic Convention (over what? Over some DNC people in private emails saying we want to go after Bernie, and their bosses writing back, correctly: No, shut up, don’t do it?) and … ultimately Bernie’s attitude caused some Bernie supporters to vote for Trump, and others to vote for Stein, and lots of others not to vote at all.Throughout the campaign, reporters asked Bernie: “Do you think what you’re doing will get Donald Trump elected?” Each time, Bernie would reply: “No, because Donald Trump is a bigot, and the American people would never elect a bigot.” There’s a sad punchline to that story. Now, if someone asks Bernie about how he behaved during the 2016 campaign, he says: “I don’t think about the past, I think about the future.” That’s too bad. That’s not so statesmanlike. A real statesman reflects on his past actions, and learns from them. Real statesmen and stateswomen think hard, and hold themselves accountable. For all of these reasons, I have about as much respect for Bernie, after the 2016 election, as I had for Ralph Nader after the 2000 election. And that is not very much respect, at all.There are a lot of good people in the Senate. I’ve admired Elizabeth Warren for a long time, as a champion of Americans getting pushed around by the banks and corporate interests that call the shots in government. I particularly admired how her attitude contrasted with Bernie’s during the 2016 campaign. She may, like Bernie, consider Hillary too centrist, corporate and uninspiring – but she said to herself: Good God, what if Donald Trump won? Bernie and his supporters never did, and I appreciated Warren for being that much more of a pragmatist who lives in the real world, and really campaigning for Hillary – not giving a damn when the purists called her a sell-out.But here’s why I don’t admire Warren as much as I used to – or Cory Booker, or Kamala Harris, or Tammy Duckworth. I do not admire the group of over thirty Democratic Senators (plus Bernie) who leaned on Senator Al Franken to resign before the Senate Ethics Committee hearings that he had called for, and had a right to.Democratic senators to Al Franken: ResignSome may have regrets now, but they did what they did. In particular, I have contempt for Kirsten Gillibrand who led the charge. It’s possible that Al Franken sexually harassed women, repeatedly, and is a terrible person. It’s also possible that he was set up by the Roger Stone types who trade in dirty tricks in the Republican Party and do so much damage. Any senator who was part of that mob action has lost my confidence that they are a sober, thoughtful person who believes in due process, and if you want to know more about why, then here’s another Quora post I wrote recently:Judy Klass's answer to Could the Mueller investigation of Roger Stone reveal if he and Hannity planned with Leeann Tweeden to weaponize the picture Al Franken took with her, and build a false narrative around it, though they were friends?So, let’s talk about people who came close to winning in 2018. Andrew Gillum ran against contemptible Ron DeSantis, who was blowing racist dog whistles from the first, and there were “irregularities” in that election, as there are too often in Florida. It sounds like Gillum was a good mayor of Tallahassee, he’s concerned with early childhood development and helping kids get a good education and access to mentors, and also a constructive interest in having local police partner with the communities they serve. Sometimes I find him more compelling as a speaker than other times … but I respect him, and I think he’s someone to watch.So is Beto. Gillum is a Bernie person, further to the left, and Beto is incurring the wrath of some Bernie people because other Bernie people have gone over to work for him, and Beto is quite centrist. Since I’m not a Bernie person, I don’t really have a dog in that fight. The Bernie people fear that Beto will sweep up Bernie voters since Beto doesn’t take PAC money either and can seem like the same kind of purist:The Real Reason Why Some Bernie Sanders Fans Have It In For Beto O’RourkeBeto is not so much a Great White Father figure, so much as a Reincarnation of Bobby Kennedy figure who has some people excited. I’m not looking for that kind of guy to save us all either, but I’m not wildly opposed. Beto campaigned hard and talked to lots of people. He speaks well, and had some striking moments while debating the despicable Ted Cruz. I think he handled it well, when he explained to white people who are angry at black athletes who take a knee why that might be a patriotic thing to do. Beto is articulate and thoughtful. I don’t have big problems with his youthful pranks and arrests (though there might be concerns about how he’s handled the DWI arrest). I don’t have strong feelings about his punk rock days one way or the other – it’s all good. Punk rock bands can be cool, and he’s dabbled in creative writing, which I relate to and like. I think his interest in tech could be good, in terms of the US moving out of the Third World status Republicans are sliding us into. I think his interest in legalizing pot – it’s not a major cause I march for, but legalization has benefits for people who need medical marijuana and it can help get us away from mass incarceration and racist judicial double standards.But those causes of his don’t speak to me at my core. They’re not things that keep me awake at night. It seems like Beto fans are more caught up in his coolness, his look, his sincere, aw shucks quality, than in specific things he plans to do. The candidate whom I find to be a compelling speaker and whom I support enthusiastically for reasons of policy and substance is Stacey Abrams.Abrams has been involved in a lot of good causes – scholarships, the EPA – and like Beto she’s started innovative businesses. She’s pretty damned smart. She got hired to edit speeches in a Congressional campaign at seventeen – and her edits got her a job, at that age, as a speechwriter. I’ve read that in the Georgia General Assembly, she’s had to explain to Republican colleagues what their legislation says, whether she supports it or not. She has an impressive record of working across the aisle. Here’s an article from Time Magazine from last summer:Stacey Abrams Could Become America's First Black Female Governor—If She Can Turn Georgia BlueAnd here are some striking passages from it:“In 2010, Abrams was elected house minority leader, becoming the first woman to lead a caucus in either chamber of the legislature. Georgia, which had been mostly led by Democrats since Reconstruction, was undergoing a rapid shift to Republican dominance, and the 2010 Republican wave had put all statewide offices in GOP hands. Still, Abrams was able to gain leverage for the badly outnumbered Democrats through her command of the issues and by exploiting Republican divisions. The current GOP governor, Nathan Deal, is a business-friendly moderate who has vetoed religious-liberty and firearms bills. Abrams worked with him on criminal-justice reforms that have been hailed nationally for reducing prison costs without increasing crime. She worked with Republicans to secure the state’s biggest-ever public-transportation funding package and to prevent a popular scholarship program from being cut. In the gubernatorial primary, her Democratic opponent, former state legislator Stacey Evans, accused Abrams of being too willing to cooperate with Republicans.”The article talks about her interest in public schools, expanding Medicaid under the ACA, (I’ve read elsewhere that was her campaign’s top priority) and dealing with mental health and criminal justice reform. It says she’s liberal on social issues but a pragmatist – and give me a pragmatist over a purist who thinks he/she’s Joan of Arc, every time. The article says:“She likes to boast that she was once given a Friend of Labor award and an “A” rating from the Georgia Chamber of Commerce in the same year. Still, some of her proudest achievements aren’t bills she passed but Republican efforts she stopped. In 2011, as one of the Democrats appointed to a commission to study the state’s tax system, she argued that the Republican proposal to cut income taxes while raising a sales tax on cable service would increase the amount most people paid. When the committee ignored her, she asked the chair for an electronic copy of the fiscal model used to construct the bill. “He said yes, because he did not know what that was,” she tells me with a grin. Abrams took home the data and reorganized it by income level to show that 82% of Georgia families would see their taxes go up. She organized her findings by legislative district, put it into a color-coded spreadsheet and left a copy on every desk in the house. The tax overhaul failed, and on the campaign trail Abrams can credibly boast of having single-handedly stopped the largest tax increase in Georgia history.”That’s an impressive story.But what I find most compelling about Abrams is her concern with Americans’ precious right to vote – ‘cause that speaks to me far more than concern about people’s right to smoke doobies. (BTW, Abrams wants to decriminalize carrying small amounts of marijuana also.) I was scared, and appalled by Republican shenanigans in Florida in 2000. I got more scared when W’s administration ushered in all those easily hacked touch-screen electronic voting machines with no paper trail, often manufactured by Republican companies, that America is STILL using fifteen years later! I’ve been freaked out for fifteen years that Democrats don’t scream bloody murder about them. I long for a national standard that every election must have a paper trail, and the possibility of a recount that cannot be diddled.Every time I see a Republican voter roster purge (as with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris in Florida) and voter ID laws designed to disenfranchise minorities and students and the poor and hit them with a kind of poll tax, and other voter suppression efforts that hark back to Jim Crow, my blood runs cold. It ran colder in 2013 when our Supreme Court gutlessly gutted the Voting Rights Act. When I watched how Republicans behaved nationally in 2018, not just in Stacey Abram’s state of Georgia, and not just in the South (can you believe the shameless stuff that went on in that county in North Carolina? That the GOP won’t repudiate?) but all over, I shivered with horror.I think those same things make Stacey Abrams shiver with horror. She’s more focused on them than I am, and she certainly has been more engaged than I have, than almost anyone has, in fighting back. She founded the New Georgia Project in late 2013, and raised money, and registered minority voters. She has been tangling with Brian Kemp for years – he was Georgia’s Secretary of State for years, suppressing the Democratic vote (in elections he ran in) and purging rosters and penalizing those who register voters, for years – and Stacey Abrams has been calling him out for it all that time.Here’s what the British paper The Guardian says about what Kemp did during the 2018 election:'Textbook voter suppression': Georgia's bitter election a battle years in the making“As of Friday morning, the unofficial election results show Kemp with a lead of more than 63,000 votes – a gap Abrams has closed from 75,000 since election night – in an election where nearly 4 million ballots were cast. In Georgia, a runoff is triggered when neither candidate secures 50% plus one vote, which Abrams’s team claimed could happen if she gains 25,632 votes.After Kemp’s resignation, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People president, Derrick Johnson, released a statement, filled with refrains echoed by other legal experts, civil rights figures and Kemp’s adversaries during and before the election.He said: “Kemp’s actions during the election were textbook voter suppression. His actions were strategic, careless and aimed at silencing the voting power of communities of color in the state.”Consider these numbers.• In the three months leading up to election day, more than 85,000 voters were purged from rolls under Kemp. During 2017 668,000 voters were purged, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.• Of those 2017 numbers, investigative reporter Greg Palast told Salon, 200,000 people left the state, died or moved out their district, making them legitimate cancellations. However, through litigation, he got the entire purge list. “Of the 400,000 who supposedly moved, our experts will tell a court that 340,134 never moved – wrongly purged,” Palast told the Guardian, saying people had been purged for not voting in an election or two.• Furthermore from 2012 to 2016, 1.5 million voters were purged – more than 10% of all voters – from records, according to a 2018 report from the Brennan Center for Justice. In comparison, 750,000 were purged from 2008 to 2012.”There were some hopeful and wonderful things that came out of the 2018 elections, but I found what happened to Abrams so painful – like the pain of what happened in the presidential election in 2016, all over again. Again, a woman who was the choice of voters was robbed of a chance to serve, in a country that likes to think of itself as a democracy – while a smirking, bigoted, law-breaking douchebag, (and Kemp is as indifferent as Trump to the threat Russia poses to the integrity of our elections) paraded around as the victor. Of all her eloquent moments, Stacey Abrams has had none more eloquent than this:'This is not a concession speech': Stacey Abrams announces lawsuit – videoAbrams has gone ahead with her promise to file a lawsuit – via her nonprofit Fair Fight Georgia:Lawsuit challenging Georgia election process filed by Stacey Abrams-backed groupJoy Reid on her show AM Joy, discussing who “won” the year, recently said she thought prosecutors won the year. With Republicans in the House and Senate continuing to renege on their Constitutional oversight duties – it has been Mueller and other prosecutors who have pushed back against corruption, obstruction and lawbreaking; they are the last bastion of defense for the system our Founders gave us. I see what Abrams is doing as part of that fight.I agree with Joy Reid’s frequent guest Jason Johnson that, while Beto and Gillum lost close races, Stacey Abrams was robbed, Stacey Abrams changed up the voting patterns in her state in the most impressive way in 2018, and she is the person to watch in 2020:Nobody Should Be Talking About Beto and Gillum in 2020 Until We Understand Stacey Abrams in 2018It speaks volumes about racism and sexism and the “image” we have of presidents in this country that there is such an obsessive media interest in other Democrats for 2020, and almost none in Abrams. The media are writing her off, as they wrote her off before the 2018 elections, while getting all tingly over Beto. They shouldn’t. She gave a recent TED talk and spoke of things to focus on, even when faced with disappointment:3 questions to ask yourself about everything you doShe says at the end of it she may be running in 2020. She may mean for the Senate or some other post, but I hope she’s seriously thinking about running for president. I think she’s absolutely the best person for the job: smart, funny, strong, unpretentious, accessible and relatable. People say: she’s heavy-set, she’s single, America would never elect her. But she knows how to turn negatives into positives: like Barack Obama did. When I heard, in 2004, (not long after 9/11 and our entry into Iraq) that a guy was giving a speech at the Democratic Convention named Barack Hussain Obama, I said: I’m sorry. America will never elect someone with a name like that. He could be a great guy, but it never could happen … And Obama got up at the convention and talked about how “Only in America could a skinny kid with a funny name get to be Senator.” And I was crying. And I thought: if this guy can turn those lemons into lemonade, there is nothing he cannot do. He’ll be president someday … Abrams has that kind of ability. People go after her because she owes so much in terms of debt. And she simply talks about Americans everywhere who are paying off college loans and supporting family members while working hard; she has that same instinct for talking frankly and reasonably, with humor, and connecting with people.Trump dumbs the discourse down, and panders to our fears and lizard brains, and people’s reasoning sinks to his expectations. Lots of Republicans do that. The Democrats I’ve always admired expect us to be smart, and they speak to us like we’re smart and sensible – and we rise to their expectations, and prove them right.I liked her the first time I heard her speak during the campaign. I didn’t know till recently that she was a Truman Scholar like me. I was glad to learn she writes romantic suspense novels, because I do unlikely, eclectic, non-Truman-Scholar-type things (write country songs, and musicals and Star Trek novels?) myself. (I’m also glad to learn she’s a Star Trek nerd, though I’m more a TOS person and I don’t dislike DS9 as she does; she’s more TNG and Voyager.) Her family prizes education, but she pulled herself up out of real poverty, like Lincoln and many of our great leaders. People who have been poor understand our nation’s economic problems in a different way – maybe a necessary way in this new Gilded Age.Some might say I’m wrong to like that she’s a woman – to want a woman president. But few Americans think it’s unreasonable that African-Americans felt especially proud when Barack Obama was in the White House. I wake up every day furious that Trump, a life-long con man, a spoiled, swaggering reality show star, a sleazy, traitorous, sexual predator mafioso, is in the White House. I’m angry at the people who should have known better who helped put him there – I mean everyone from “journalists” on CNN and at the New York Times to Comey to Bernie and others who should have thought harder and known better. (Getting mad at diehard Trump supporters for not thinking hard would be like getting mad at FOX for not practicing real journalism; why bother?) I’m angry at the sexism that pervades our society and that was part of Trump’s tactics and part of why those tactics worked. So, yes, I would like woman president after this awful time – but not just any woman. I want a woman of substance, not symbolism. Again, some want Oprah, but Oprah, being a smart and sensible person, is behind Stacey Abrams, the politically committed woman of substance: the ridiculously smart, clear-eyed idealist/pragmatist in a long-haul fight to protect the democratic rights of the people in her state. I don’t see any candidate anywhere who’d be as good a president as she would – and I sure hope she runs.

Yes this is possible. Depending on your definition of "Web site".I have worked with large datasets from Fortune 500 firms, which are big enough, and old enough, that they tend to have systems that were set up decades ago and are too big to migrate to newer systems. They thus tend to have decades worth of cruft in their systems as things get patched on, you add new tables for new data and new codes, etc. The people who work with this data also tend to have a lot in their heads, and some pretty old-school documentation (which may or may not be intelligible). So, I'm betting that the 500 million number includes code you have to review with each insurer to be sure that their system is interacting with the website as it is supposed to.The thing to remember is that Healthcare.gov is not a website that sells a product or service; it is not even a website that sells a lot of products (like Amazon); it is a front end for dozens (perhaps hundreds) of websites each selling dozens of complicated and non-commoditized products with very high legal stakes, each of which is stored and priced based on a variety of systems for each company and in some cases each state, each system being old and crotchety and using languages that often require more lines of code to interact with.I should note that I haven't used Healthcare.gov, but I have used the CA equivalent, Covered California, which generally gets good reviews (which I would echo). When you put in your information (age, income, etc.), the site has to interact with the systems of each individual insurer. That insurer has some complicated formula (which may dynamically depend on the current data), and it has to spit out a list of all the plans it wants to offer, with prices that take into account the actuarial risks, the amount of subsidy (if any), and the level of benefits of the plans. There are several tiers for each plan, and then depending on income you may get various levels of subsidy.Since most of these insurers are quite old, I would imagine that their systems are written in languages that are not very expressive and thus have more lines of code than a modern system would have.Add to that the fact that healthcare has for so long been a state AND federal issue, such that, for example, some insurers are contractors for administering medicare/medicaid (or, in California, MediCal), plus even a multi-state insurer often has to have different systems (or at least code that ensures they are complying in different ways) for each state. Now there is a new level of requirements at the federal level, in addition to all the old federal and state regulations. Plus, states keep going in and out of the federal site, so there's a lot of stuff in the air.AND! In some cases, if the calculation is wrong in some way and you don't offer a plan, it's quite possible that you could be sued for that and penalized. Facebook has a tiny fraction of the legal stakes of health insurers, and also has not had decades for that environment to affect the SOPs on the data side.So, I think the 500 million could well be an accurate description of the scale of the site, even if the number of lines that have to be written is significantly lower than that (though probably very high!). Also, remember that because it's a government contract, and there are all sorts of regulations about that, they often may need to write new code for things that most sites can reuse from third-party vendors, and because there are so many contractors, there is probably a lot of overlap and inefficient design as each contractor doesn't work well with others.We in Silicon Valley tend to forget that government has very different constraints than tech. They need to move with due process — so they have to have a contracting process that is seen as fair (though it of course isn't always), otherwise it will be seen as interfering in the market to support one's allies. Facebook can easily pick whoever they want based on the vibe they get, or the feel from the team, in addition to price. Government also has to be accountable. When Twitter was going down because they couldn't scale, you didn't have congressional hearings, and the feds weren't talking about suing contractors. You also can't pick your battles. Government can't decide not to enter the Georgia market because the regulation is particularly cumbersome. And it can't decide it will ignore certain customers because they require a lot of work and don't provide a lot of revenue. And Government usually can't scale. They need a system that works for everyone at the same time. Obviously they failed at this, but it's only an issue because we expected it to roll out nationally on a pretty tight timeline. Facebook started at a few universities, expanded slowly, and took a while to get national. They could do testing easily by just waiting until problems happened and then fixing them before moving to a larger scale.All of the above constraints tend to make for more management, more fragmented development, and a greater complexity, all of which, IMO, will lead to less concise code.