Sebelius finds a silver lining in 'data hub'
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius takes part in a panel discussion to answer questions about the Affordable Care Act enrollment, Friday, Oct. 25, 2013, in San Antonio. The panel also included San Antonio Mayor Julion Castro and Bexar County Judge Nelson W. Wolff. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
Photo by AP
WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, besieged by bad news about the new government health care website, sought on Saturday to highlight a portion of the complex system that she said is working well.
The website, designed to let millions of uninsured Americans shop and enroll in health insurance, has been plagued by delays and error messages since it rolled out on Oct. 1, embarrassing President Obama as his administration scrambles to fix the problems.
In an upbeat blog post, Sebelius released statistics to illustrate the volume of interest in the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and the speed of the “data hub,” one piece of the complex system behind HealthCare.gov.
Sebelius praised the performance of the data hub, which connects to the Social Security Administration and IRS to verify applicants' identity and income.
She said it took the hub less than 1.2 seconds to route information, and called it “a model of efficiency and security.”
“The Hub is on the job, and so are we,” said Sebelius, who will be grilled by Republican lawmakers at a hearing on Wednesday.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.