jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (68 posts)

The Website and the Roll Out

  1. A.Villarasa profile image73
    A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago

    The close to $450 million website, and the chaotic rollout of ObamaCare only re-enforces the now common perception that the president's major domestic governmental intervention  is a massive failure. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
    And like the  iceberg that sank the Titanic,  Obama's iceberg  i.e. ObamaCare  will sink the economy into the depths of a recessionary-inflationary whirlpool.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So if a website about the US Constitution failed because of technical issues, that would mean that the constitution was a failure?

      1. A.Villarasa profile image73
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I said the website and the rollout...together. Of course the founding fathers would be so perplexed of the technology that are now available to us... and I doubt it very much if they would be willing to pay $450 million for a website that was tested before Oct. 1 and was found to fail altogether when several hundred people asked by the HHS to  test/access it crashed the website in multiple different places. The question is now being asked... what did Obama know and when did he know that the website crashed, and why did the HHS under his direction of course decided to go ahead with the roll out when they know that the website could not handle a few hundred testers of its viability. If he did not know...why in the heck did he not know.

        1. profile image81
          Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          No, but it would mean that the website was a failure.  It would also mean that it was an expensive failure.  It MIGHT mean that other aspects of Obamacare will be a failure.  We won't know for quite some time, but you have to admit it certainly wasn't a good start.

        2. profile image81
          Education Answerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          That's an interesting way to make your point.  It's actually a good point.

          The problem is that people also had the opportunity to call and talk to an operator.  Operators were standing by, and phones were working.  There were still only six people who signed up on day one.  Something is amiss, and it's not just a website.  Is it a lack of interest?  Is it a system that is too complicated?  Is it poor communication?  I don't know the answer, but there should have been more than six people signing up on the first day.  Even one of my hubs had greater traffic. . .  lol

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        LOL. Yes, that would be the fallacious way of looking at it.

        Can we therefore conclude you will be just as dogmatic to other products or services that have glitches to their websites and chaotic roll-outs as being massive failures?

        1. profile image81
          Education Answerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Consumers wouldn't necessarily think the product was poor, but sales would be abysmal.  Few start-up companies could survive such a poor beginning. 

          While I might not conclude that the product was poor, I would conclude that the management was likely poor.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps, but products that didn't make it successfully to market were not usually a result of web glitches, it was the result of other factors such as there being no market for the product or falls short of the claims of what the product can do, which at this time are not apparent in the roll out of the health care program.

            1. profile image81
              Education Answerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              We don't know what the market is yet.  Six people signed up on the first day; while the website wasn't functioning, people had the option to call.  That doesn't really indicate a great demand.  Only time will tell, and I may be wrong about that.  We'll see.

    2. profile image61
      AnalogousMethodposted 4 years ago

      There were also some $5+ billion in grants given to the states for them to set up their exchanges, so all in all we're looking at essentially a $6 billion online marketplace, that isn't even close to working.

      Par for the course, the government does something worse than the private sector for 10,000 times the cost.

      Also, people are putting their personal information into the website, the risk of identity theft is so ridiculously high, I'm afraid we're going to find a lot more problems coming from this.

      It's not just that the website isn't working. It's the entire thing. Billions of dollars and years of preparation, and they screwed up step 1. They screwed up handling visitors on a website, they screwed up the registration process, they screwed up the application process, and they screwed up the transmit-to-insurance-companies process. I don't want to be forced to have these loons in charge of my healthcare.

      And then there's the juicy tidbit about them changing the website at the last minute to force people to register before seeing prices. If people could just login and see the prices(you can go through a backdoor anyway), they wouldn't have so many registrations to tout about it being such a success.

      BCBS in ND today said they were told not to release the number of people who have signed up for insurance by Obama's administration, but they did it anyway. 14 have signed up.

      I'm wondering if this wasn't designed to fail. I have a hard time believing our government would be so incompetent as to hire a firm that has a reputation of failing to fulfill its contracts, and had just screwed up health websites for Canada and Hawaii.

      Such a joke, it's painful to watch.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image73
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        The irony of it all is Obama, because of the so called  "glitches" may be forced to  postpone the individual mandate, which  the Republicans were pushing him to do earlier in the debate, but won't and didn't. So now the Republicans are gloating (secretly of course)  and just waiting for the whole thing to collapse on its own incompetent weight.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I love how you are always predicting inevitable doom. Remember when you predicted that Obama would lose the election in a landslide? Or when you predicted Obama wold be impeached over Benghazi? etc. etc.

          You are pretty much the perfect predictor of what will not occur.

          1. profile image81
            Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Didn't you predict the end of the Republican party, today?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I don't think I predicted it would collapse in the next two hours so I wouldn't say I was wrong.

              Besides I believe I conceded you had a point and amended that statement to be about modern conservatism rather than the republican party.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image73
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                @Josak: Since we're on the topic of predictions... Obama predicted that the whole cost of ObamaCare would be $900 billion over a 10 year period. Now current estimates by the CBO put the cost at $1.5 trillion (maybe more) most of it coming from the taxpayer's pocketbook. Now I know you liberal-leftist folks love to give money to the government (in the form of higher taxes) to provide for folks (about 50% of the US population ) who do not pay federal taxes at all)...... but Obama's  mantra of wealth redistributuion  is just getting way out of hand. At some point, the folks (tea partiers, and ordinary americans  etc.) would rebel at such imposition and then what?

                1. psycheskinner profile image79
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  If giving people basic healthcare is "wealth redistribution" I am all for it.  It is a better use of my tax dollars than 99% of what the government does.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image73
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    @Psycheskinner: If as you say, you don't like what the government is doing with 99% of your tax dollars ... then you should be marching with the Tea partiers who are demanding  greater governmental accountability for how it spends those tax dollars. The idea of wealth re-distribution have been tried in all  of the socialist states, extinct or still existing, and have failed miserably to alleviate the economic misery index/status of  most of its inhabitants

                  2. profile image61
                    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    Ok, I'll accept the ACA if we can get rid of income taxes.

                  3. profile image81
                    Education Answerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    To make Obamacare successful the way it stands right now, the wealth redistribution is going to have to come from young, healthy people, not necessarily rich people.  As a teacher, I can tell you that many of my old students went to college, earned a degree, and now live with their parents, unemployed or underemployed.  Putting a greater burden on young people seems inherently unfair; we're also pushing the debt on to them.

                    How is this really going to be a tax that wealthy people pay?  They already have insurance.  They'll have insurance after Obamacare takes hold.  Are they paying a greater tax to support Obamacare?  Nope.  Again, the only wealth redistribution we have here is taking away from people who are healthy to pay for those who are not, and that typically hits young people the hardest.

                    1. Josak profile image60
                      Josakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                      Because the tax on higher than 250 000 income yearly doesn't exist...
                      Neither does the tax on Cadillac insurance plans...
                      Because the tax on brand name pharmaceuticals doesn't exist...

                      Wait all of those do and are part of the PPACA?

                      You still don't actually know the legislation *sigh*.

                2. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Another prediction big_smile

            2. profile image61
              AnalogousMethodposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              The Republican party is going to die. It might reform, but it would just be a new party with the R name.

              The Republican party as we know it, simply cannot last. They are too progressive fiscally, and too old fashioned socially.

              They can reform their social standpoints, but then they will be too similar to Democrats.

              They can reform their fiscal standpoints, but they will still alienate women, youths, and minorities.

              They can reform both, and they will be Libertarians.

              The R party is on its last legs. It's played a stupid game.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                More or less what I said/meant but with a more leftist view tongue

              2. profile image81
                Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                When I've made bold predictions in the past, I've had a mixed record.  Thus, I try not to make these kinds of predictions.  However, based on what has happened in the past, it might just be that we're (Republicans) in for a solid congressional election.  I could be wrong, but we'll both see when it's election time.  Democrats hold a slim majority in the Senate.  It wouldn't take many seats, and then the Republicans would have a majority there too. 

                Democrats buy votes, so yes, they are doing quite well right now.  Yes, they'll likely do well for quite some time.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  The congressional election looks pretty good for Republicans just because of what seats are up.

                  Senate flipping is very unlikely.

                  The buying votes theory as we have covered before is impossible. Liberals (and further leftists like myself) who these polices are supported by are the people PAYING for these policies by virtue of being significantly wealthier on average.

                  1. profile image81
                    Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Your statement about Democrats generally being wealthier can coexist with my statement about Democrats buying votes.  There have to be some Democrats who do not earn a lot, right?  If you had a low income, and you were receiving public assistance, whom would you vote for?  Would you vote for the Republican who wants welfare reform or the Democrat who has expanded food-stamp benefits, unemployment benefits, and public assistance?  We both know the answer here.  I personally know two people who will tell you that they voted for President Obama for one reason, continued government assistance.  I'm sure many, many more voted the same way.  Free money is alluring.  Would I vote for a governor who was adamant about pushing through higher teachers' salaries?  Perhaps I would, and I might even do so if he/she were a Democrat!  I'm broke.  So, please don't tell me that Democrats are not buying votes by spending more money and expanding public assistance.  We both know the reality here.

                    Now, we both know that many wealthy people's votes can be purchased too.  Republicans have been accused of this from time to time.  Now, I accuse President Obama of the same thing.  If you promise a corporate bailout, low-cost government loans, or preferential treatment, you can purchase the votes of wealthy people.  Remember, the rich get richer mentality?  Part of that is because of sweetheart deals the government offers, favorable treatment.  Why do you think that happens?  It happens for votes, influence, and campaign donations.  Both sides cater to wealthy people, a small group of people.  The Democrats also cater to a much larger group of people, the expanding masses of poor people.  Who do you think wins on election day?  It's like a little kid bringing cookies to class and asking kids to vote for him.  We teachers see who will win, and we Republicans also see who receives the votes when the metaphorical cookie is offered to the electorate.

                    1. Josak profile image60
                      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                      Yeah that doesn't work because by the same (flawed) logic that you are using if people are voting to give themselves more entitlements the people who do not receive entitlements but in fact in greater proportion pay for them (the majority of liberals) would not be OK with paying for it and would thus vote conservative.... but they don't. Instead they vote to raise their own taxes to give to other people.

                      Based on those facts the only reasonable conclusion is that people actually just vote on their ideology rather than selfish self interest (how uncynical) sure a minority will vote for entitlements because they receive them another minority will vote Republican so that they can produce more greenhouse gases without challenge or mine areas they would otherwise not be allowed to.

                      But both those groups are an insignificant minority, the demographics prove it.

                      The problem I think is strict capitalists are so used to basing their decisions on self interest that they struggle to comprehend others might not. I honestly never remember ever considering a vote based on how it would affect my life, twice I remember considering how it would affect my children but other than that it's how it will affect the lives of those less fortunate, every leftist I have spoken to about this has expressed the same.

                      I guess we just don't vote the same. TO be fair though I think most conservatives vote the same way, on what they think is best for the country, there is a portion that does not and from there comes this mathematically unsound "they are voting themselves money" theory.

                      Absolutely you can buy rich people by offering subsidies to businesses, but not the kind of rich people liberals comprise, liberals on average are highly educated professionals not magnates or entrepreneurs and I see nothing a democratic platform is offering these people except higher taxes and the satisfaction that they are doing what is right.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image73
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            @Josak: Predicting and hoping are two different things. I never predicted that Obama will lose the election; neither did I predict that he would be impeached over Benghazi. I was HOPING he would... but that's the audacity of HOPE... Hmmmmmm reminds me of a certain book that  its author used as a  title..

    3. profile image81
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago

      The Obamacare Individual Mandate Non-Compliance Tax starts in 2014.   Anyone who does not have “qualifying” health insurance, as defined by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services, must pay an income surtax to the IRS. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that six million American families will be liable for the tax.  The Associated Press states that, “Most would be in the middle class.”

      Income redistribution used to mean taxing the rich and helping the poor.  With Obamacare, it means taxing the rich, many people in the middle class, and young, healthy people to help pay for everybody else.  Is this really what Democrats stand for now days?  I sincerely hope not.  Many of us middle-class, working people can't afford much more of this kind of change.

     
    working