Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (7 Viewers)

[roadkill1292]

Just scrap it and go to single-payer.

Some would argue that this has been the plan all along. Drive prices through the roof by adding massive inefficiencies to an already overregulated system, ramp up taxes/fees in the name of propping the system up, then proclaim the entire project a failure and use the new revenue stream as the monetary base for implementing a single-payer system. In the short-term, the tech firms and insurance companies get to line their pockets. What's not to love?

I love the "some would argue" line. What, are you afraid to admit that YOU are the some? Don't want people to think that you're incredibly paranoid (as you would truly have to be to believe this)?

Forgive me if my manner of speaking/typing doesn't meet with your approval. Perhaps I should start a new thread for each disjointed thought which passes through my mind in order to place them more coherent format for you.

Of course I think this is a possibility. The progressive modus operandi for the past 100 years has been the continuous implementation of one social program after another, each more comprehensive than the ones which preceded them.

Winning

 

[Sarnoff]

Has CGI laid the blame on Bush yet?

It's going to be pretty entertaining in here when this thing is viewed as a colossal failure in 5-10 years with skyrocketing costs and huge breakdowns in service.

I'm sure the supporters will be blaming global warming or secondhand smoke or something.

Last month, they did blame the Gov't Shutdown on GW Bush.

MSNBC said the Obamacare website launch problems were the Republican's fault.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the essential elements of the ACA were designed by Republicans, so they're already setting up the narrative that if it fails, it the GOP's fault.

 

[avoiding injuries]

We are talking about the same bill that nobody had a chance to read before it was passed, right? Seemed like a straight "party vote" at the time.

 

[DrJ]

It's pretty telling that the D lap dogs are already trying to shift blame elsewhere.

 

[Statorama]

It's pretty telling that the D lap dogs are already trying to shift blame elsewhere.

What's worse is they're trying to rewrite history, making out Obama to be some kind of pragmatist/centrist.

He didn't want "Republican support". He wanted a couple of RINO tastic Senators to give him political cover and allow him to call this turd of a law "bipartisan".

 

[worrierking]

I am opposed to ACA on both philosophical and practical grounds. I think it's a terrible plan in which the negative consequences far outweigh the positives. That being said, the bad rollout is only a reason to chuckle at the incompetence of the people in charge, not a reason in and of itself to oppose the bill. Opponents should not be focusing on the technical failures, which ultimately will be fixed. Instead they should be focusing on the increased costs, and failure to achieve nearly any of the stated and promised goals of the plan.

Dozens of free-market based reforms have been bandied about and while they will never have the appeal that subsidies and free care will have, they need to be a part of any argument against this enormous boondoggle.

Of all of the bad things in the ACA, the exchanges are probably the least objectionable. I have no problem in letting insurers and customers get together on a government-sponsored website. I do wonder if it is a good idea why hadn't it happened in the free market, but I don't have a problem with it if it helps.

I think it is also very strange that Obama, who unilaterally, and perhaps unconstitutionally, simply delayed the employer mandate without congrtessional approval would not do something similar with this, when he seems to have been given ample warning that a fiasco was coming. In fact, he probably could have used delaying this as some sort of bargaining chip in dealing with the house.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Who knew that Tea Party republicans were so excited about getting their new iPhone health insurance plan that sign up problems would lead to such outrage?

 

[Statorama]

Who knew that Tea Party republicans were so excited about getting their new iPhone health insurance plan that sign up problems would lead to such outrage?

Who knew that so many who cheered on Obamacare would demand waivers from it

 

[The Commish]

Then Obama tried to reform healthcare and went for single payer, which was shot down by his political opponents on the right.

You mean back when he had an unbreakable supermajority in both houses? When Democrats ran everything?

Anything Obama wanted passed could get passed. The evidence to that statement is the #### sandwich law we're discussing today.

Just wondering.....if you compared what Obama proposed to what was actually passed? I cursory look will show you that what was passed was a shell of what he proposed. And most of the gutting came from appeasing the "blue bloods". I can only imagine the amount of cliff jumping we'd have by the GOP if Obama got exactly what he proposed. What we have today is essentially what the GOP wanted two decades ago....we'll see how it works.

Just because some RINO's had some touchy-feely "democrat light" health plan doesn't mean it was "THE" Republican plan. Don't go trying to blame the failures of your party elsewhere.

I don't have a party You can deflect all you want, but nothing will change the fact that high ranking GOP leaders were in favor of an individual mandate until they were against it.

 

[dhockster]

I am opposed to ACA on both philosophical and practical grounds. I think it's a terrible plan in which the negative consequences far outweigh the positives. That being said, the bad rollout is only a reason to chuckle at the incompetence of the people in charge, not a reason in and of itself to oppose the bill. Opponents should not be focusing on the technical failures, which ultimately will be fixed. Instead they should be focusing on the increased costs, and failure to achieve nearly any of the stated and promised goals of the plan.

Dozens of free-market based reforms have been bandied about and while they will never have the appeal that subsidies and free care will have, they need to be a part of any argument against this enormous boondoggle.

Of all of the bad things in the ACA, the exchanges are probably the least objectionable. I have no problem in letting insurers and customers get together on a government-sponsored website. I do wonder if it is a good idea why hadn't it happened in the free market, but I don't have a problem with it if it helps.

I think it is also very strange that Obama, who unilaterally, and perhaps unconstitutionally, simply delayed the employer mandate without congrtessional approval would not do something similar with this, when he seems to have been given ample warning that a fiasco was coming. In fact, he probably could have used delaying this as some sort of bargaining chip in dealing with the house.

I will add though that even if you think the ACA is a good idea, that the website problems do illustrate what an enormous, complicated program this is, and the government, with how they handle most programs, may not be equipped to run such an enormous, complicated program in any sort of efficient manner.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I am opposed to ACA on both philosophical and practical grounds. I think it's a terrible plan in which the negative consequences far outweigh the positives. That being said, the bad rollout is only a reason to chuckle at the incompetence of the people in charge, not a reason in and of itself to oppose the bill. Opponents should not be focusing on the technical failures, which ultimately will be fixed. Instead they should be focusing on the increased costs, and failure to achieve nearly any of the stated and promised goals of the plan.

Dozens of free-market based reforms have been bandied about and while they will never have the appeal that subsidies and free care will have, they need to be a part of any argument against this enormous boondoggle.

Of all of the bad things in the ACA, the exchanges are probably the least objectionable. I have no problem in letting insurers and customers get together on a government-sponsored website. I do wonder if it is a good idea why hadn't it happened in the free market, but I don't have a problem with it if it helps.

I think it is also very strange that Obama, who unilaterally, and perhaps unconstitutionally, simply delayed the employer mandate without congrtessional approval would not do something similar with this, when he seems to have been given ample warning that a fiasco was coming. In fact, he probably could have used delaying this as some sort of bargaining chip in dealing with the house.

I will add though that even if you think the ACA is a good idea, that the website problems do illustrate what an enormous, complicated program this is, and the government, with how they handle most programs, may not be equipped to run such an enormous, complicated program in any sort of efficient manner.

This is where I am. Not too many government run programs that I have experience with has been run very well. This roll out was just the first measurable objective, and it would be hard to imagine it being a bigger failure than it is. I can't seem to gain the confidence that even though this part didn't go smooth, everything else from here on out will be successful.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Conservatives:

Last week: I'M AGAINST OBAMACARE!

This week: I'M AGAINST PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE FAST ENOUGH!!!

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I am opposed to ACA on both philosophical and practical grounds. I think it's a terrible plan in which the negative consequences far outweigh the positives. That being said, the bad rollout is only a reason to chuckle at the incompetence of the people in charge, not a reason in and of itself to oppose the bill. Opponents should not be focusing on the technical failures, which ultimately will be fixed. Instead they should be focusing on the increased costs, and failure to achieve nearly any of the stated and promised goals of the plan.

Dozens of free-market based reforms have been bandied about and while they will never have the appeal that subsidies and free care will have, they need to be a part of any argument against this enormous boondoggle.

Of all of the bad things in the ACA, the exchanges are probably the least objectionable. I have no problem in letting insurers and customers get together on a government-sponsored website. I do wonder if it is a good idea why hadn't it happened in the free market, but I don't have a problem with it if it helps.

I think it is also very strange that Obama, who unilaterally, and perhaps unconstitutionally, simply delayed the employer mandate without congrtessional approval would not do something similar with this, when he seems to have been given ample warning that a fiasco was coming. In fact, he probably could have used delaying this as some sort of bargaining chip in dealing with the house.

I will add though that even if you think the ACA is a good idea, that the website problems do illustrate what an enormous, complicated program this is, and the government, with how they handle most programs, may not be equipped to run such an enormous, complicated program in any sort of efficient manner.

This is where I am. Not too many government run programs that I have experience with has been run very well. This roll out was just the first measurable objective, and it would be hard to imagine it being a bigger failure than it is. I can't seem to gain the confidence that even though this part didn't go smooth, everything else from here on out will be successful.

At the same time that the ACA website was failing, Rockstar games tried to launch GTA Online. It was a total failure. Yet nobody tried to opine about what that means about the institutional competence of private companies. The federal government runs any number of absurdly complex information systems. The NSA's data mining program is the most extensive in the world.

This is an embarrassing failure the federal government. They deserve to take plenty of heat about it. But anyone who decides it's illustrative of any greater truth about the organizational competencies of the public and private sector is simply cherry picking an incident to confirm his or her previously established narrative. Major projects in the private and public sectors are often poorly run. Sometimes, they are well run.

 

[Statorama]

Conservatives:

This week: I'M AGAINST PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE FAST ENOUGH!!!

Don't confuse laughter with anger.

 

[Statorama]

Then Obama tried to reform healthcare and went for single payer, which was shot down by his political opponents on the right.

You mean back when he had an unbreakable supermajority in both houses? When Democrats ran everything?

Anything Obama wanted passed could get passed. The evidence to that statement is the #### sandwich law we're discussing today.

Just wondering.....if you compared what Obama proposed to what was actually passed? I cursory look will show you that what was passed was a shell of what he proposed. And most of the gutting came from appeasing the "blue bloods". I can only imagine the amount of cliff jumping we'd have by the GOP if Obama got exactly what he proposed. What we have today is essentially what the GOP wanted two decades ago....we'll see how it works.

Just because some RINO's had some touchy-feely "democrat light" health plan doesn't mean it was "THE" Republican plan. Don't go trying to blame the failures of your party elsewhere.

I don't have a party You can deflect all you want, but nothing will change the fact that high ranking GOP leaders were in favor of an individual mandate until they were against it.

You seem to lay it on a little thick when it comes to the GOP, that's all.

And I stand by my statement that those in the GOP that wanted this version of healthcare were RINOs.

 

[The Commish]

I am opposed to ACA on both philosophical and practical grounds. I think it's a terrible plan in which the negative consequences far outweigh the positives. That being said, the bad rollout is only a reason to chuckle at the incompetence of the people in charge, not a reason in and of itself to oppose the bill. Opponents should not be focusing on the technical failures, which ultimately will be fixed. Instead they should be focusing on the increased costs, and failure to achieve nearly any of the stated and promised goals of the plan.

Dozens of free-market based reforms have been bandied about and while they will never have the appeal that subsidies and free care will have, they need to be a part of any argument against this enormous boondoggle.

Of all of the bad things in the ACA, the exchanges are probably the least objectionable. I have no problem in letting insurers and customers get together on a government-sponsored website. I do wonder if it is a good idea why hadn't it happened in the free market, but I don't have a problem with it if it helps.

I think it is also very strange that Obama, who unilaterally, and perhaps unconstitutionally, simply delayed the employer mandate without congrtessional approval would not do something similar with this, when he seems to have been given ample warning that a fiasco was coming. In fact, he probably could have used delaying this as some sort of bargaining chip in dealing with the house.

I will add though that even if you think the ACA is a good idea, that the website problems do illustrate what an enormous, complicated program this is, and the government, with how they handle most programs, may not be equipped to run such an enormous, complicated program in any sort of efficient manner.

This is where I am. Not too many government run programs that I have experience with has been run very well. This roll out was just the first measurable objective, and it would be hard to imagine it being a bigger failure than it is. I can't seem to gain the confidence that even though this part didn't go smooth, everything else from here on out will be successful.

I've always maintained that cost is our major issue with healthcare....the less complex something is, the harder it is to hide the reasons for costs being what they are. No program is worth anything if it's not adjusting costs and when I speak of costs, I'm not talking about what you and I pay in premiums. I'm talking about the fact that a hospital charges $30 for a roll of TP etc....I looked through my wife's medical bills for our most recent child and some of those charges are just flat out ridiculous. I told this story in a another thread, but I had a friend who broke his arm over in Germany (I think) and it cost $3000 to set his arm, put the screws, wires etc in his arm and keep him overnight. He came home....just to have the wires and screws taken out it was going to cost him much more than that here...just to have that stuff done in the doctor's office. Something is seriously wrong with that picture.

 

[ericttspikes]

It's going to be pretty entertaining in here when this thing is viewed as a colossal failure in 5-10 years with skyrocketing costs and huge breakdowns in service.

I'm sure the supporters will be blaming global warming or secondhand smoke or something.

If that were to happen then it will prove that the Healthcare industry can't work in a free market economy. Yes, if businesses can't figure out how to compete in a market place of 300,000,000 customers there is something wrong.

 

[dhockster]

I am opposed to ACA on both philosophical and practical grounds. I think it's a terrible plan in which the negative consequences far outweigh the positives. That being said, the bad rollout is only a reason to chuckle at the incompetence of the people in charge, not a reason in and of itself to oppose the bill. Opponents should not be focusing on the technical failures, which ultimately will be fixed. Instead they should be focusing on the increased costs, and failure to achieve nearly any of the stated and promised goals of the plan.

Dozens of free-market based reforms have been bandied about and while they will never have the appeal that subsidies and free care will have, they need to be a part of any argument against this enormous boondoggle.

Of all of the bad things in the ACA, the exchanges are probably the least objectionable. I have no problem in letting insurers and customers get together on a government-sponsored website. I do wonder if it is a good idea why hadn't it happened in the free market, but I don't have a problem with it if it helps.

I think it is also very strange that Obama, who unilaterally, and perhaps unconstitutionally, simply delayed the employer mandate without congrtessional approval would not do something similar with this, when he seems to have been given ample warning that a fiasco was coming. In fact, he probably could have used delaying this as some sort of bargaining chip in dealing with the house.

I will add though that even if you think the ACA is a good idea, that the website problems do illustrate what an enormous, complicated program this is, and the government, with how they handle most programs, may not be equipped to run such an enormous, complicated program in any sort of efficient manner.

This is where I am. Not too many government run programs that I have experience with has been run very well. This roll out was just the first measurable objective, and it would be hard to imagine it being a bigger failure than it is. I can't seem to gain the confidence that even though this part didn't go smooth, everything else from here on out will be successful.

At the same time that the ACA website was failing, Rockstar games tried to launch GTA Online. It was a total failure. Yet nobody tried to opine about what that means about the institutional competence of private companies. The federal government runs any number of absurdly complex information systems. The NSA's data mining program is the most extensive in the world.

This is an embarrassing failure the federal government. They deserve to take plenty of heat about it. But anyone who decides it's illustrative of any greater truth about the organizational competencies of the public and private sector is simply cherry picking an incident to confirm his or her previously established narrative. Major projects in the private and public sectors are often poorly run. Sometimes, they are well run.

Point taken.

Three thoughts:

1) In my opinion, in general, and this does not apply to everyone, there are more skilled, smarter people in the private sector than in the government because they can make more money in the private sector than they can working for the government. This leads me to believe that the private sector is better equipped to handle big, complicated projects. This will not be true in all cases, as you indicate, but in general, I think it applies.

2) Government programs have to, at times, factor in political considerations that the private sector does not. For instance, I have read that one of the problems with the ACA website was that they decided to have you figure out if you qualified for subsidies prior to you seeing the potential costs so that you wouldn't get sticker shock and dislike the program from the get go. This change was made late and made it much more complicated to log-in on the front end. This might not have been done if it was a private sector program.

3) Even if you think my first two points are wrong, is it possible that the ACA is so enormous and complicated that it would be impossible for ANYONE, governmental or private, to run it in an efficient manner?

Just my thoughts.

 

[The Commish]

Then Obama tried to reform healthcare and went for single payer, which was shot down by his political opponents on the right.

You mean back when he had an unbreakable supermajority in both houses? When Democrats ran everything?

Anything Obama wanted passed could get passed. The evidence to that statement is the #### sandwich law we're discussing today.

Just wondering.....if you compared what Obama proposed to what was actually passed? I cursory look will show you that what was passed was a shell of what he proposed. And most of the gutting came from appeasing the "blue bloods". I can only imagine the amount of cliff jumping we'd have by the GOP if Obama got exactly what he proposed. What we have today is essentially what the GOP wanted two decades ago....we'll see how it works.

Just because some RINO's had some touchy-feely "democrat light" health plan doesn't mean it was "THE" Republican plan. Don't go trying to blame the failures of your party elsewhere.

I don't have a party You can deflect all you want, but nothing will change the fact that high ranking GOP leaders were in favor of an individual mandate until they were against it.

You seem to lay it on a little thick when it comes to the GOP, that's all.

And I stand by my statement that those in the GOP that wanted this version of healthcare were RINOs.

I lay it on where it's deserved. Right now the GOP has earned the crazy label. You can go back to the Kerry vs GWB era where I was mocking the dems mercilessly. It's cyclical. I've said here many times that it baffles me that this "healthcare" debate is even happening. When Clinton was in office trying to force businesses to supply healthcare, the alternate solution was, for the individual to pay for it. Now that the dems are saying the individuals should pay for it, the GOP is saying that they shouldn't have to pay for it. I can't make this crap up.

Then I have people like yourself with the "no true Scotsman" position suggesting that men like Dole, Gingrich, Romney, etc were RINO. Again..I can't make this crap up.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Conservatives:

This week: I'M AGAINST PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE FAST ENOUGH!!!

Don't confuse laughter with anger.

Don't confuse laughter with irrational hatred.

 

[SacramentoBob]

How is that GTA Online website working now?

 

[avoiding injuries]

I am opposed to ACA on both philosophical and practical grounds. I think it's a terrible plan in which the negative consequences far outweigh the positives. That being said, the bad rollout is only a reason to chuckle at the incompetence of the people in charge, not a reason in and of itself to oppose the bill. Opponents should not be focusing on the technical failures, which ultimately will be fixed. Instead they should be focusing on the increased costs, and failure to achieve nearly any of the stated and promised goals of the plan.

Dozens of free-market based reforms have been bandied about and while they will never have the appeal that subsidies and free care will have, they need to be a part of any argument against this enormous boondoggle.

Of all of the bad things in the ACA, the exchanges are probably the least objectionable. I have no problem in letting insurers and customers get together on a government-sponsored website. I do wonder if it is a good idea why hadn't it happened in the free market, but I don't have a problem with it if it helps.

I think it is also very strange that Obama, who unilaterally, and perhaps unconstitutionally, simply delayed the employer mandate without congrtessional approval would not do something similar with this, when he seems to have been given ample warning that a fiasco was coming. In fact, he probably could have used delaying this as some sort of bargaining chip in dealing with the house.

I will add though that even if you think the ACA is a good idea, that the website problems do illustrate what an enormous, complicated program this is, and the government, with how they handle most programs, may not be equipped to run such an enormous, complicated program in any sort of efficient manner.

This is where I am. Not too many government run programs that I have experience with has been run very well. This roll out was just the first measurable objective, and it would be hard to imagine it being a bigger failure than it is. I can't seem to gain the confidence that even though this part didn't go smooth, everything else from here on out will be successful.

At the same time that the ACA website was failing, Rockstar games tried to launch GTA Online. It was a total failure. Yet nobody tried to opine about what that means about the institutional competence of private companies. The federal government runs any number of absurdly complex information systems. The NSA's data mining program is the most extensive in the world.

This is an embarrassing failure the federal government. They deserve to take plenty of heat about it. But anyone who decides it's illustrative of any greater truth about the organizational competencies of the public and private sector is simply cherry picking an incident to confirm his or her previously established narrative. Major projects in the private and public sectors are often poorly run. Sometimes, they are well run.

Meh. This was a pretty big deal, and much more was riding on this than GTA Online, especially when considering the anticipation. It had to do with an issue that was the center of attention in the country for the past few years and all eyes were watching. They missed the mark big time, and when having the opportunity to delay it when they apparently knew there were "glitches", they fought pretty hard to keep the same timetable.

They should have been hoping for an "out" to get things straightened out. Instead, when they got that "out", they pressed even harder for some reason.

 

[Widbil83]

Conservatives:

Last week: I'M AGAINST OBAMACARE!

This week: I'M AGAINST PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE FAST ENOUGH!!!

Next week: I'M GOING TO WIN THE SENATE THANKS TO OBAMACARE!!!

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Conservatives:

Last week: I'M AGAINST OBAMACARE!

This week: I'M AGAINST PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE FAST ENOUGH!!!

Next week: I'M GOING TO WIN THE SENATE THANKS TO OBAMACARE!!!

Good luck with all that.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Just scrap it and go to single-payer.

If Obamacare fails, this will be the ultimate result.But at this point, how can anyone judge that it's a failure yet? We're years away from such an evaluation. So far, 90% of the complaints seem to be about computer glitches.

...and prices

...and choice of plans

In terms of complaints, that's the other 10%- so far. In the long term, of course, it is these issues, and not computer glitches, that will decide the success or failure of Obamacare.But I am very skeptical that that the majority of the public will discover that the program is not beneficial for them, as you assume right now that they will. I have trouble believing that the people behind this would design a system that would be so devastating to it's creators. My strong hunch is that once all the glitches are fixed, more people will like Obamacare than dislike it.

I'm pretty sure 90% aren't going to be happy with their premiums increasing either.

MAP

 

[Sarnoff]

How is that GTA Online website working now?

"I can't believe how it's easy to kill hookers, but impossible to get health care in this country"

 

[Statorama]

Then Obama tried to reform healthcare and went for single payer, which was shot down by his political opponents on the right.

You mean back when he had an unbreakable supermajority in both houses? When Democrats ran everything?

Anything Obama wanted passed could get passed. The evidence to that statement is the #### sandwich law we're discussing today.

Just wondering.....if you compared what Obama proposed to what was actually passed? I cursory look will show you that what was passed was a shell of what he proposed. And most of the gutting came from appeasing the "blue bloods". I can only imagine the amount of cliff jumping we'd have by the GOP if Obama got exactly what he proposed. What we have today is essentially what the GOP wanted two decades ago....we'll see how it works.

Just because some RINO's had some touchy-feely "democrat light" health plan doesn't mean it was "THE" Republican plan. Don't go trying to blame the failures of your party elsewhere.

I don't have a party You can deflect all you want, but nothing will change the fact that high ranking GOP leaders were in favor of an individual mandate until they were against it.

You seem to lay it on a little thick when it comes to the GOP, that's all.

And I stand by my statement that those in the GOP that wanted this version of healthcare were RINOs.

I lay it on where it's deserved. Right now the GOP has earned the crazy label. You can go back to the Kerry vs GWB era where I was mocking the dems mercilessly. It's cyclical. I've said here many times that it baffles me that this "healthcare" debate is even happening. When Clinton was in office trying to force businesses to supply healthcare, the alternate solution was, for the individual to pay for it. Now that the dems are saying the individuals should pay for it, the GOP is saying that they shouldn't have to pay for it. I can't make this crap up.

Then I have people like yourself with the "no true Scotsman" position suggesting that men like Dole, Gingrich, Romney, etc were RINO. Again..I can't make this crap up.

That's why I chose my words carefully. "this version" of healthcare. Yet I'm also amused that you refer to Romney not being a RINO. THE FREAKING GOD FATHER of socialized state run healthcare. That's why no one takes you seriously. Because you hold someone like Romney up as some kind of hard right conservative.

And you do not lay it on evenly. We are in the throes of the single most inept, corrupt presidential administration we've ever had and yet you have nary a peep negatively for Obama. Yet you have no concerns saying his opponents "are crazy".

 

[Statorama]

Conservatives:

This week: I'M AGAINST PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE FAST ENOUGH!!!

Don't confuse laughter with anger.

Don't confuse laughter with irrational hatred.

That's what I said.

 

[TheIronSheik]

How is that GTA Online website working now?

Strangely enough, I was able to sign up for health insurance on GTA.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Conservatives:

Last week: I'M AGAINST OBAMACARE!

This week: I'M AGAINST PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE FAST ENOUGH!!!

For talking points this one is getting overplayed.

 

[Slapdash]

So you're saying they attempted to compromise to get GOP votes because they couldn't get enough Democrat votes. It's not the GOP's fault that 60 out of 60 Democrats didn't want single-payer or whatever other stuff Obama wanted. Like I said before, if 60 Democrats (yes, including Leiberman and Sanders) wanted single-payer, we'd have single-payer. It's not the GOP that prevented it.

Yes, this is true, as I said before. If all 60 Senate Dems had been solid votes for single-payer, we would have it. With that said, Republicans did have an influence on the process, both because of imperfect information (not knowing how everyone would vote or who would hold all the Senate seats) and due to an attempt to have it be a bipartisan law.

And because there were only 60 Democrats in the Senate for a matter of weeks.

 

[The Commish]

Then Obama tried to reform healthcare and went for single payer, which was shot down by his political opponents on the right.

You mean back when he had an unbreakable supermajority in both houses? When Democrats ran everything?

Anything Obama wanted passed could get passed. The evidence to that statement is the #### sandwich law we're discussing today.

Just wondering.....if you compared what Obama proposed to what was actually passed? I cursory look will show you that what was passed was a shell of what he proposed. And most of the gutting came from appeasing the "blue bloods". I can only imagine the amount of cliff jumping we'd have by the GOP if Obama got exactly what he proposed. What we have today is essentially what the GOP wanted two decades ago....we'll see how it works.

Just because some RINO's had some touchy-feely "democrat light" health plan doesn't mean it was "THE" Republican plan. Don't go trying to blame the failures of your party elsewhere.

I don't have a party You can deflect all you want, but nothing will change the fact that high ranking GOP leaders were in favor of an individual mandate until they were against it.

You seem to lay it on a little thick when it comes to the GOP, that's all.

And I stand by my statement that those in the GOP that wanted this version of healthcare were RINOs.

I lay it on where it's deserved. Right now the GOP has earned the crazy label. You can go back to the Kerry vs GWB era where I was mocking the dems mercilessly. It's cyclical. I've said here many times that it baffles me that this "healthcare" debate is even happening. When Clinton was in office trying to force businesses to supply healthcare, the alternate solution was, for the individual to pay for it. Now that the dems are saying the individuals should pay for it, the GOP is saying that they shouldn't have to pay for it. I can't make this crap up.

Then I have people like yourself with the "no true Scotsman" position suggesting that men like Dole, Gingrich, Romney, etc were RINO. Again..I can't make this crap up.

That's why I chose my words carefully. "this version" of healthcare. Yet I'm also amused that you refer to Romney not being a RINO. THE FREAKING GOD FATHER of socialized state run healthcare. That's why no one takes you seriously. Because you hold someone like Romney up as some kind of hard right conservative.

And you do not lay it on evenly. We are in the throes of the single most inept, corrupt presidential administration we've ever had and yet you have nary a peep negatively for Obama. Yet you have no concerns saying his opponents "are crazy".

#1, Couldn't care less if you took me seriously or not....I take great comfort in the fact that neither side wants me.

#2. HE WAS THE GOP NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!!!!!!! Is the GOP THAT dysfunctional that they are resorting to nominating RINO???

#3. Go fish someone else

ETA: Needed a couple more ! for effect

 

[Slapdash]

I am opposed to ACA on both philosophical and practical grounds. I think it's a terrible plan in which the negative consequences far outweigh the positives. That being said, the bad rollout is only a reason to chuckle at the incompetence of the people in charge, not a reason in and of itself to oppose the bill. Opponents should not be focusing on the technical failures, which ultimately will be fixed. Instead they should be focusing on the increased costs, and failure to achieve nearly any of the stated and promised goals of the plan.

Dozens of free-market based reforms have been bandied about and while they will never have the appeal that subsidies and free care will have, they need to be a part of any argument against this enormous boondoggle.

Of all of the bad things in the ACA, the exchanges are probably the least objectionable. I have no problem in letting insurers and customers get together on a government-sponsored website. I do wonder if it is a good idea why hadn't it happened in the free market, but I don't have a problem with it if it helps.

I think it is also very strange that Obama, who unilaterally, and perhaps unconstitutionally, simply delayed the employer mandate without congrtessional approval would not do something similar with this, when he seems to have been given ample warning that a fiasco was coming. In fact, he probably could have used delaying this as some sort of bargaining chip in dealing with the house.

I will add though that even if you think the ACA is a good idea, that the website problems do illustrate what an enormous, complicated program this is, and the government, with how they handle most programs, may not be equipped to run such an enormous, complicated program in any sort of efficient manner.

This is where I am. Not too many government run programs that I have experience with has been run very well. This roll out was just the first measurable objective, and it would be hard to imagine it being a bigger failure than it is. I can't seem to gain the confidence that even though this part didn't go smooth, everything else from here on out will be successful.

At the same time that the ACA website was failing, Rockstar games tried to launch GTA Online. It was a total failure. Yet nobody tried to opine about what that means about the institutional competence of private companies. The federal government runs any number of absurdly complex information systems. The NSA's data mining program is the most extensive in the world.

This is an embarrassing failure the federal government. They deserve to take plenty of heat about it. But anyone who decides it's illustrative of any greater truth about the organizational competencies of the public and private sector is simply cherry picking an incident to confirm his or her previously established narrative. Major projects in the private and public sectors are often poorly run. Sometimes, they are well run.

Point taken.

Three thoughts:

1) In my opinion, in general, and this does not apply to everyone, there are more skilled, smarter people in the private sector than in the government because they can make more money in the private sector than they can working for the government. This leads me to believe that the private sector is better equipped to handle big, complicated projects. This will not be true in all cases, as you indicate, but in general, I think it applies.

2) Government programs have to, at times, factor in political considerations that the private sector does not. For instance, I have read that one of the problems with the ACA website was that they decided to have you figure out if you qualified for subsidies prior to you seeing the potential costs so that you wouldn't get sticker shock and dislike the program from the get go. This change was made late and made it much more complicated to log-in on the front end. This might not have been done if it was a private sector program.

3) Even if you think my first two points are wrong, is it possible that the ACA is so enormous and complicated that it would be impossible for ANYONE, governmental or private, to run it in an efficient manner?

Just my thoughts.

Wasn't the firm that built and designed the site a private one? Politics is played in the private sector all the time, IT is no exception.

 

[ericttspikes]

If there only were some sort of free market solution like an "insurance broker" to help all these confused, frustrated people get healthcare.

 

[Statorama]

I've missed these days

 

[[icon]]

It's going to be pretty entertaining in here when this thing is viewed as a colossal failure in 5-10 years with skyrocketing costs and huge breakdowns in service.

I'm sure the supporters will be blaming global warming or secondhand smoke or something.

If that were to happen then it will prove that the Healthcare industry can't work in a free market economy. Yes, if businesses can't figure out how to compete in a market place of 300,000,000 customers there is something wrong.

Yes... because the Government is TOTALLY hands off.... Free Market Economy indeed

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Consumer Reports is telling people to stay away form the site but I think that is simply due to the amount of time=$$$ that folks are experiencing.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Consumer Reports is telling people to stay away form the site but I think that is simply due to the amount of time=$$$ that folks are experiencing.

From the horse's mouth:

Obamacare opponents have misrepresented Consumer Reports' position

 

[tommyGunZ]

I am opposed to ACA on both philosophical and practical grounds. I think it's a terrible plan in which the negative consequences far outweigh the positives. That being said, the bad rollout is only a reason to chuckle at the incompetence of the people in charge, not a reason in and of itself to oppose the bill. Opponents should not be focusing on the technical failures, which ultimately will be fixed. Instead they should be focusing on the increased costs, and failure to achieve nearly any of the stated and promised goals of the plan.

Dozens of free-market based reforms have been bandied about and while they will never have the appeal that subsidies and free care will have, they need to be a part of any argument against this enormous boondoggle.

Of all of the bad things in the ACA, the exchanges are probably the least objectionable. I have no problem in letting insurers and customers get together on a government-sponsored website. I do wonder if it is a good idea why hadn't it happened in the free market, but I don't have a problem with it if it helps.

I think it is also very strange that Obama, who unilaterally, and perhaps unconstitutionally, simply delayed the employer mandate without congrtessional approval would not do something similar with this, when he seems to have been given ample warning that a fiasco was coming. In fact, he probably could have used delaying this as some sort of bargaining chip in dealing with the house.

I will add though that even if you think the ACA is a good idea, that the website problems do illustrate what an enormous, complicated program this is, and the government, with how they handle most programs, may not be equipped to run such an enormous, complicated program in any sort of efficient manner.

This is where I am. Not too many government run programs that I have experience with has been run very well. This roll out was just the first measurable objective, and it would be hard to imagine it being a bigger failure than it is. I can't seem to gain the confidence that even though this part didn't go smooth, everything else from here on out will be successful.

At the same time that the ACA website was failing, Rockstar games tried to launch GTA Online. It was a total failure. Yet nobody tried to opine about what that means about the institutional competence of private companies. The federal government runs any number of absurdly complex information systems. The NSA's data mining program is the most extensive in the world.

This is an embarrassing failure the federal government. They deserve to take plenty of heat about it. But anyone who decides it's illustrative of any greater truth about the organizational competencies of the public and private sector is simply cherry picking an incident to confirm his or her previously established narrative. Major projects in the private and public sectors are often poorly run. Sometimes, they are well run.

Meh. This was a pretty big deal, and much more was riding on this than GTA Online, especially when considering the anticipation. It had to do with an issue that was the center of attention in the country for the past few years and all eyes were watching. They missed the mark big time, and when having the opportunity to delay it when they apparently knew there were "glitches", they fought pretty hard to keep the same timetable.

They should have been hoping for an "out" to get things straightened out. Instead, when they got that "out", they pressed even harder for some reason.

I'm sure had the roll out been delayed to fix the tech issues Republicans would have lauded the Federal Gov't for their efforts.

 

[ericttspikes]

It's going to be pretty entertaining in here when this thing is viewed as a colossal failure in 5-10 years with skyrocketing costs and huge breakdowns in service.

I'm sure the supporters will be blaming global warming or secondhand smoke or something.

If that were to happen then it will prove that the Healthcare industry can't work in a free market economy. Yes, if businesses can't figure out how to compete in a market place of 300,000,000 customers there is something wrong.

Yes... because the Government is TOTALLY hands off.... Free Market Economy indeed

Name one aspect of our economy that the government is totally hands off? Laws are rules to the game, and any successful business figures out how to make money and grab market share. The government isn't setting prices, that's up to the industry to figure out. If BCBS or Aetna can't compete, they'll lose customers.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Conservatives calling Democrats delusional might be the ultimate in hilarity.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Conservatives calling Democrats delusional might be the ultimate in hilarity.

You know how to flush out the biggest partisan hacks? Criticize both parties and watch them come out to defend "their side".

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think that getting people to know their subsidies first seems like a good idea, and I wouldn't describe it as "hiding" anything. You don't want people to go on the site, look at the unsubsidized prices for two seconds, decide it is too expensive, and give up. The objective should be to convey information to consumers about what their actual price would be.

I agree. That's how I would design it too. The effective net price needs to be the main thing that people see -- the math of how you arrived at that price can be put in a footnote someplace.

 

[Soonerman]

It's going to be pretty entertaining in here when this thing is viewed as a colossal failure in 5-10 years with skyrocketing costs and huge breakdowns in service.

I'm sure the supporters will be blaming global warming or secondhand smoke or something.

If that were to happen then it will prove that the Healthcare industry can't work in a free market economy. Yes, if businesses can't figure out how to compete in a market place of 300,000,000 customers there is something wrong.

Yes... because the Government is TOTALLY hands off.... Free Market Economy indeed

Name one aspect of our economy that the government is totally hands off? Laws are rules to the game, and any successful business figures out how to make money and grab market share. The government isn't setting prices, that's up to the industry to figure out. If BCBS or Aetna can't compete, they'll lose customers.

Uh, that would be the point. The government has completely destroyed any semblance of a market in health care. They have not necessarily done this in other sectors (yet).

 

[timschochet]

It's going to be pretty entertaining in here when this thing is viewed as a colossal failure in 5-10 years with skyrocketing costs and huge breakdowns in service.

I'm sure the supporters will be blaming global warming or secondhand smoke or something.

If that were to happen then it will prove that the Healthcare industry can't work in a free market economy. Yes, if businesses can't figure out how to compete in a market place of 300,000,000 customers there is something wrong.

Yes... because the Government is TOTALLY hands off.... Free Market Economy indeed

Name one aspect of our economy that the government is totally hands off? Laws are rules to the game, and any successful business figures out how to make money and grab market share. The government isn't setting prices, that's up to the industry to figure out. If BCBS or Aetna can't compete, they'll lose customers.

Uh, that would be the point. The government has completely destroyed any semblance of a market in health care. They have not necessarily done this in other sectors (yet).

But this was done long before Obamacare. I agree with you: I would prefer a free market. But we don't have it, and we're not going to get it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's going to be pretty entertaining in here when this thing is viewed as a colossal failure in 5-10 years with skyrocketing costs and huge breakdowns in service.

I'm sure the supporters will be blaming global warming or secondhand smoke or something.

If that were to happen then it will prove that the Healthcare industry can't work in a free market economy. Yes, if businesses can't figure out how to compete in a market place of 300,000,000 customers there is something wrong.

Yes... because the Government is TOTALLY hands off.... Free Market Economy indeed

Name one aspect of our economy that the government is totally hands off? Laws are rules to the game, and any successful business figures out how to make money and grab market share. The government isn't setting prices, that's up to the industry to figure out. If BCBS or Aetna can't compete, they'll lose customers.

Uh, that would be the point. The government has completely destroyed any semblance of a market in health care. They have not necessarily done this in other sectors (yet).

But this was done long before Obamacare. I agree with you: I would prefer a free market. But we don't have it, and we're not going to get it.

You prefer a completely free market for health care?

 

[Soonerman]

It's going to be pretty entertaining in here when this thing is viewed as a colossal failure in 5-10 years with skyrocketing costs and huge breakdowns in service.

I'm sure the supporters will be blaming global warming or secondhand smoke or something.

If that were to happen then it will prove that the Healthcare industry can't work in a free market economy. Yes, if businesses can't figure out how to compete in a market place of 300,000,000 customers there is something wrong.

Yes... because the Government is TOTALLY hands off.... Free Market Economy indeed

Name one aspect of our economy that the government is totally hands off? Laws are rules to the game, and any successful business figures out how to make money and grab market share. The government isn't setting prices, that's up to the industry to figure out. If BCBS or Aetna can't compete, they'll lose customers.

Uh, that would be the point. The government has completely destroyed any semblance of a market in health care. They have not necessarily done this in other sectors (yet).

But this was done long before Obamacare. I agree with you: I would prefer a free market. But we don't have it, and we're not going to get it.

Maybe not, but we don't have to just give up and go all in. There are many smaller steps that would be market oriented that could be taken.

The statists are pretty good at the ratchet effect. Believers in freedom can take a lesson there.

 

[Soonerman]

It's going to be pretty entertaining in here when this thing is viewed as a colossal failure in 5-10 years with skyrocketing costs and huge breakdowns in service.

I'm sure the supporters will be blaming global warming or secondhand smoke or something.

If that were to happen then it will prove that the Healthcare industry can't work in a free market economy. Yes, if businesses can't figure out how to compete in a market place of 300,000,000 customers there is something wrong.

Yes... because the Government is TOTALLY hands off.... Free Market Economy indeed

Name one aspect of our economy that the government is totally hands off? Laws are rules to the game, and any successful business figures out how to make money and grab market share. The government isn't setting prices, that's up to the industry to figure out. If BCBS or Aetna can't compete, they'll lose customers.

Uh, that would be the point. The government has completely destroyed any semblance of a market in health care. They have not necessarily done this in other sectors (yet).

But this was done long before Obamacare. I agree with you: I would prefer a free market. But we don't have it, and we're not going to get it.

You prefer a completely free market for health care?

Let me answer that:

Oh my goodness yes!!!!!

 

[timschochet]

Case in point (re: the free market for health care): one of the first things Obamacare did is get rid of restrictions for pre-existing conditions. The insurance companies can't reject you for this, and they can't charge more for it. The public LOVES this. The public loves it so much that when Romney ran against Obama, the Republicans offered an alternative to Obamacare that would STILL remove restrictions for pre-existing conditions!! Not a single Republican campaigned on returning the restrictions. And even though libertarian or Tea Party types might argue in an opinion piece that it's very unwise to remove this restriction (and IMO they're correct), I would bet anything that if you polled that portion of the public who sympathizes with the Tea Party, they don't like the restrictions either.

So there you go: we will NEVER have a market system in healthcare, because the public wants this pre-existing stuff removed. And there's only two ways to do it: some form of program like Obamacare (the Republicans can call it something else, but in the end it will be the same thing), or single payer universal health care. That's it. For the rest of our lives, those are the alternatives remaining to us. Pick your poison.

 

[timschochet]

It's going to be pretty entertaining in here when this thing is viewed as a colossal failure in 5-10 years with skyrocketing costs and huge breakdowns in service.

I'm sure the supporters will be blaming global warming or secondhand smoke or something.

If that were to happen then it will prove that the Healthcare industry can't work in a free market economy. Yes, if businesses can't figure out how to compete in a market place of 300,000,000 customers there is something wrong.

Yes... because the Government is TOTALLY hands off.... Free Market Economy indeed

Name one aspect of our economy that the government is totally hands off? Laws are rules to the game, and any successful business figures out how to make money and grab market share. The government isn't setting prices, that's up to the industry to figure out. If BCBS or Aetna can't compete, they'll lose customers.

Uh, that would be the point. The government has completely destroyed any semblance of a market in health care. They have not necessarily done this in other sectors (yet).

But this was done long before Obamacare. I agree with you: I would prefer a free market. But we don't have it, and we're not going to get it.

You prefer a completely free market for health care?

Not completely.

If I could go back to the days before Medicare, what I would prefer is a free market health care system with a safety net for anyone below a certain income level, and with government involvement in public health issues. However, I don't know how to get from here to there, and I think it's impossible. So it's really a moot conversation.