The problem with your analysis is that you have the facts wrong.

If you look at a chart of revenue and spending in constant dollars, you'll see that after the 1998 tax cuts, revenue increased until the dot.com bust in 2000. Revenue was down until the 2001 & 2003 Bush tax cuts, after which it increased until the housing bubble burst in 2007/08. Tha major tax cuts in the era you're talking about weren't followed by revenue decreases in the years right after they took effect. Revenue right now is about average for the last 15 years, down a bit because it follows the state of the economy and the economy overall is still down. Minor changes in tax rates don't affect revenue that much. Annual revenue is UP about a trillion dollars since 1980, so it's not like we've suddenly had less revenue than ever before.

Spending is the the obvious issue. Since 1980, spending is up $1.8 Trillion (still constant, i.e. inflation adjusted dollars). Since 2000, it's up over a Trillion dollars.

Bottom line, revenue is way up. Spending is just way, way more up. Revenue has gone in the desired direction. The issue is that Spending has gone in the wrong direction if we want to solve anything related to debt and deficits.

If they know what URL is being called to cause the problem, Site B might be able to figure out Site A from logs for the client's that include the Refer in their request for it, but once they've identified the URL itself, they can just fix the actual vulnerability or block that specific URL with a redirect or something similar.

Once I found a major party's official state website allowed anyone to post and execute arbitrary PHP with full access via just filling in a comment text field, I stopped being surprised by how clueless people were about configuring their sites...

Exactly. That's the sort of thing I mean by "transparently to the user". Sorry if my sarcasm was too obscure.

Why, it's not just bots! If you put a link out on a public web site, real people might even click on the link for you!

Next you'll be suggesting that you could do that transparently to the user and have their browser re-use their already logged in session on another site to do things with their credentials for you!!!!

What will they think of next? It's a good thing we have these wonderful stories to explain how this whole web thingy works with all it's links and stuff...

Don't you mean insurance? Or are you conceding now that this has nothing to do with insurance. Wait until you see the bill....

I'd be willing to wager that more people in the United States will have no insurance a year after the ACA took affect than in the average of the 10 years before. Care to take me up on that wager?

Raising the price of something and making it fit an individual's needs less doesn't typically lend itself to a higher sales volume.

How about we start with the health care proposals at the bottom of this economic analysis?

Because in the world of government ACA website contracting, all the contractors can deliver their X and the thing can still not work at all.

This was a failure at a higher level than the individual contractors involved. Picture taking a few committees with folks like your local city council members/school board members and having them architect and design a $500 million IT project and lay out the specifications for other groups to execute in small chunks.

You get things like a design that couldn't possibly work, contradicting specifications, no testing nor bug fix time, etc...

The bottom line is incompetence at the very highest levels of government.

If Obama was smart at all, he'd have known this was coming and gracefully "given in" to the Republicans who were demanding a delay in ACA implementation in exchange for some concessions from the GOP on spending/taxes. Then he wouldn't look like such an idiot that his only "major accomplishment" is such a clusterf***.

As long as your provider keeps offering it you can keep your existing coverage.

You missed a few caveats there....

As long as your provider keeps offering it you can keep your existing coverage, as long as:
They never make any changes to it, including price, deductibles/copays (over $5), etc...
They comply with the coverage mandates in the law, like lifetime limits, covering adults up to 26, etc...
It's not an HSA plan.
It doesn't make "too" much money for the insurance company in any particular year.
It doesn't need new enrollees to offset people who drop coverage.

So yeah, as long as time is frozen and no one ever wants to adjust anything, except to follow more expensive mandates and lose money on it, your provider can keep offering the plan.

I mean, it's not like the Obama Administration knew that "language in ACA regulations dated July 2010 estimates that "40 to 67%" of consumers will lose their health policies", right?

Except of course, when traffic lights stop working, people still navigate intersections just fine without them. They don't degenerate into car chaos...

What you're missing is that order is a prerequisite for law and government. You can't form a government unless people have already created social order. It's not the other way around.

People create order in society. Society doesn't create order among people. "Society" isn't a thing with an existence and will outside of the individuals within it.

"Every single"..."pretty much incapable of doing simple math when they get to talking about budgets"

So Paul Ryan, the quintessential Tea Party Republican, Chairman of the House Budget committee and member of the Bowles-Simpson Commission can't do math when talking about budgets?

Your comment seems to say much more about your personal political bias then they do about the math and science knowledge of Tea Party members of Congress...

Next you'll be claiming Ron Paul has less medical knowledge than your average liberal....

Revenue has gone up over the last 30 years in constant dollars. So why is revenue an issue in deficits?

Spending, having gone up much faster, is the obvious issue when you are comparing the two numbers. Revenue is the number that has gone in the desired direction to reduce the deficits. Spending has gone in the wrong direction to reduce the deficits.

The issue of nominal reductions in tax rates (what you're calling tax cuts) and how that affects revenue (not as much as people think) isn't a big part of the impact.

Empirically, revenue still went up in the years after most of the major tax cuts. It's hard to distinguish that from the effects of an improved economy, so you can can certainly argue about causation, but they clearly didn't cause any sort of major drop in revenue. Forget what you've heard in the media. Look at the numbers and read some economists.

Revenue historically tracks how the economy is doing. As a result of how people adjust to changes in tax rates, while the actual nominal tax rates have a marginal impact and a distortionary affect on economic efficiency, they aren't a big driver of how much total revenue is received by the government.

That's factually inaccurate, since that "41" count includes many bills that actually succeeded in repealing parts of the law , like the 1099 regulations and the unworkable CLASS program. So "failed each time" doesn't exactly match reality does it? Of course, if you counted only the times they tried to repeal the entire law, then you'd have to cite a much tinier number that wouldn't be as useful for propaganda purposes.

Spending has gone up twice as much (in constant dollars) over the last 30 years as revenue has. Based on that, it's pretty difficult to make a good case that the issue is revenue and not out of control spending. You can blame military spending or Wall Street rescue spending. But it's pretty obviously a spending problem.

"From 1980 to 2012, Revenue is $892 Billion higher. Does that sound like taxes have just gotten too low?
In the same 32 years, spending is $1,844 Billion higher. Hmm... I think we see why our deficit is so high now...."

What you're leaving out is that employer provided health insurance was a direct result of government wage controls.

Let's talk about some of the drivers of health care costs in the United States:
We have a limited supply of "Health Care Workers" as a result of government regulations. That causes an increase in costs.
We primarily get "insurance" through your employer because of government regulations. That third party purchaser and lack of competition causes an increase in costs.
We have an extremely limited choice of "insurance" plans overall because of government regulation. That lack of choice causes an increase in costs.
Health care is provided on-demand in ERs because of government regulation. That unfunded care causes an increase in costs.
People who don't pay their medical bills can't be dinged on their credit because of government regulation. That unpaid for care causes an increase in costs.
Insurance companies can't compete across State lines and can't compete on coverage because of government regulation. That lack of competition causes an increase in costs.
We have bureaucratically funded health care for many people (medicare/medicaid). That drives up costs as it distorts the market for health care.
The United States is much wealthier than other large countries around the world. So there is more demand for more expensive procedures and practices. That higher demand causes and increase in costs.

Those are the primary drivers of health care costs in the U.S. Only one of those is attributable to the "market". The others are directly a result of government regulations. Now, you can take the position that you like some of those regulations anyway and that's understandable, but you can't factually deny in an economics sense that the primary cause of high insurance and health care costs in the U.S. isn't government regulations of one sort or another.

Until this coming year, the States were differentiated enough in their State level insurance regulations that you could see very obvious correlations with health insurance costs and levels of regulation between states. The same basic insurance for the same people could be twice as much or more in NJ than UT, for example, even after adjusting for inflation.

Now the Feds have managed to make it all worse for everyone by making national regulations adopting all the worst state practices for inflating costs and making them mandatory in "insurance". Joy....

So, something similar to what I've implemented twice in the past at different companies for $10 million in software development and $10 million in hardware? (monthly operational costs for bandwidth can get expensive, but that's not included here).

So what does the other $600 million+ goes towards? Bribes and other assorted waste?

Most people don't realize how bad news stories are until they see one they have personal knowledge of. Guess, what, the others are generally just as bad.

Most people don't realize of wasteful and inefficient the government is until they see it try to do something they know something about. Guess what, the other things government does are generally just as bad.