yep, this sums up the repub whines quite nicely

[Mytzlplk]

 

[as seen on tv]

i gave this a "like". i've said right from the start that the better strategy for the house was to ACCELRATE obamacare, so that voters could encounter "sticker shocker" well in advance of the 2014 mid terms.

never in my wildest dreams did i imagine that the website would be a total fiasco.

you have to give obama credit though. he's re-defined "teflon president". reagan would be green with envy

 

[Figjam]

...they are like the collective "little brat" that plugs his ears and yells so they cannot hear you - republican State's that did not create their own health care sites are the ones screaming the loudest - fools...

 

[Mytzlplk]

...they are like the collective "little brat" that plugs his ears and yells so they cannot hear you - republican State's that did not create their own health care sites are the ones screaming the loudest - fools...

I see it as about as stark and uncontestable example of their "both ways" BS as one could ever hope to see, although I'm sure they'll work on challenging that assessment.

I'd like to know what steps those like Boner would take to remedy the situation, since it's such a crime.

 

[trapdoor]

I don't think this is a valid criticism. One conservative criticism of this plan, all along, has been that it won't work. Pointing out its failures when they exist is consistent with that.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

 

[Mytzlplk]

I don't think this is a valid criticism. One conservative criticism of this plan, all along, has been that it won't work. Pointing out its failures when they exist is consistent with that.

in other words, software failures and the law are the same thing, and implemetation problems, like those Medicare Part D and other examples suffered, are determinative when evaluating the long term success/failure of the law those implementation problems arose in.

if you say so

 

[Figjam]

I see it as about as stark and uncontestable example of their "both ways" BS as one could ever hope to see, although I'm sure they'll work on challenging that assessment.

I'd like to know what steps those like Boner would take to remedy the situation, since it's such a crime.

...their steps are:

1. Sabotage the process through willful ignorance,
2. Continue to sabotage by dissemination of misinformation,
3. Further sabotage by calling program a failure BEFORE it has started,
4. Attempt to defund,
5. Hold useless hearings to further try and delay any success...

 

[trapdoor]

in other words, software failures and the law are the same thing, and implemetation problems, like those Medicare Part D and other examples suffered, are determinative when evaluating the long term success/failure of the law those implementation problems arose in.

if you say so

When the software failures directly impact the implementation of the law via a much-touted program, yes, software failures and the law are the same thing. The law is meaningless if it doesn't put programs in place, and it is a failure if those programs don't work. At this point, those programs do not work.

And as reported in Slate magazine here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...roblems_the_president_s_message_may_make.html

they are unlikely to work for some time.

 

[Mytzlplk]

When the software failures directly impact the implementation of the law via a much-touted program, yes, software failures and the law are the same thing. The law is meaningless if it doesn't put programs in place, and it is a failure if those programs don't work. At this point, those programs do not work.

And as reported in Slate magazine here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...roblems_the_president_s_message_may_make.html

they are unlikely to work for some time.

if you say so.

software and the law are two different things and will remain so, no matter how much you rightwingnuts wanna make them one and the same. That's like saying that the quality of the crop of apples and the difficulty getting to them are one and the same, whereas saying that some of them might become rotten if access isn't provided is another matter entirely. That's the case Slate made. There's a relationship between the two things (one could even say they inextricably intertwined) which no one has denied, but the distinction between software issue and the law itself remains. The glitches take it outside of the ideological battle and potential for success it would otherwise enjoy absent those glitches, and into the technocratic world upon which it relied for easy and swift access, as opposed to the snail mail depended on in the past -- which is currently an option as I understand it. What's next, a "failure" charge is justified because people are too lazy to use it?

The failure lies in the "technical" work product, and no failures in the law have been demonstrated beyond that dependence on "free market" gov contractors and the push for outsourcing as opposed to inhouse (more gov employees) you "small gov" rightwingnuts have what, spent the last few decades denouncing and fighting?

I'm finding it highly amusing the way you guys are completely overlooking the failure of the software company to provide a product as promised, and not even at the price agreed upon. Why would you no, when you simply have to assign the failure in its entirety to the ideological underpinnings of the law. If that wasn't the case, you'd be drawing the distinctions between the technical glitches and the law.

The only legitimate criticism is the one Slate made

Either the White House knew how bad things were and wasn’t playing it straight or it didn’t know how bad things were and is just inept.
​

but whatever option is preferred there has nothing to do with the "train wreck" the law would inevitably become as an ideological/real world matter (as rightwingnuts argued it pre-problems) it is being conflated with.

And I don't see how any of this in anyway undermines the hypocrisy charge as posed against Boner either. As an opponent of Obamacare opponent he should be overjoyed with the impediment to implementation these glitches are, and the efforts to undermine that fail imo, even if his reasoning parallels your own on the matter. Why he would be bashful about feeling and expressing glee that such an evil infant is allegedly dying in the crib will have to remain a mystery. Apparently he suffers from the same confusion you do, since he can't be giving those "free market" gov contractors and the repub-loved outsourcing behind it the role they have. Why if I was a rightwingnut conspiracy kook, I'd argue that this is nothing more than deliberate sabatoge on the part of the software developers and their allies (republican) that wanna undermine Obamacare and insure its failure.

There's plenty of time to rectify the problems, and "not working for some time" hardly equates to "won't be working in time for people to sign up in a timely and desired manner" averting "failure" of the sign up process as has been the case in other "implemetation" examples. While the criticisms of the present may be justified, I'd call those kinda declarations premature should they be made, and which seems to be the implication.

Have your last word for now -- I gotta scoot.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

folks can apply for health insurance thru the exchanges on the internet, by phone: 1-800-318-2596 or (TTY: 1-855-889-4325), or in-person with an ACA navigator.
also, chains like Rite-Aid, Walgreens, etc. have staff who will help. don't forget regular insurance brokers can process applications as well.

there's no excuse for freeloaders not to do the right thing.

 

[trapdoor]

if you say so.

software and the law are two different things and will remain so, no matter how much you rightwingnuts wanna make them one and the same.

So ineffective implementation has nothing to do with the efficacy of the programs? Really?

That's like saying that the quality of the crop of apples and the difficulty getting to them are one and the same, whereas saying that some of them might become rotten if access isn't provided is another matter entirely. That's the case Slate made.

Not true -- I expected you to read the links in the text. The real case Slate made is that there are problems with the software architecture that could last well beyond the Dec. 15 deadline that people have to apply for insurance -- so people will face a penalty for failure to have insurance they couldn't access (but I assume that's not a legal problem) Here is the link you didn't follow about the fundamental flaws in the architecture -- http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...illion_lines_of_code_is_the_wrong_way_to.html
.

What's next, a "failure" charge is justified because people are too lazy to use it?

Actually, yes, that charge would be valid because a key tenet of the law is that it acquires insurance payments from people who would not otherwise make them. A key worry among those who favor Obamacare is that it can't attract the "20-year-old slacker," without whom the laws financial structure simply won't work.

I'm finding it highly amusing the way you guys are completely overlooking the failure of the software company to provide a product as promised, and not even at the price agreed upon. Why would you no, when you simply have to assign the failure in its entirety to the ideological underpinnings of the law. If that wasn't the case, you'd be drawing the distinctions between the technical glitches and the law.

Who's ignoring that? The problem, however, is that the contract is supposed to be administered by the executive branch, and tests performed before implementation, to ensure that the law should be implemented correctly (of course the Obama administration is extremely selective about enforcing actual laws so maybe that's a non issue to Obama supporters). Yes, failure to provide this oversight and testing is a failure in the implementation of the law.

T

he only legitimate criticism is the one Slate made

Either the White House knew how bad things were and wasn’t playing it straight or it didn’t know how bad things were and is just inept.​

The trouble with Slate's statement is that "inept" and "not playing straight" are not mutually exclusive.

​

but whatever option is preferred there has nothing to do with the "train wreck" the law would inevitably become as an ideological/real world matter (as rightwingnuts argued it pre-problems) it is being conflated with.

Absolutely it is. We who opposed the law predicted implementation would be a train wreck and, surprise! It's a train wreck. And we haven't even got to the "fun" part where the IRS starts confiscating the tax returns of 20-somethings who have failed to enroll.

There's plenty of time to rectify the problems, and "not working for some time" hardly equates to "won't be working in time for people to sign up in a timely and desired manner" averting "failure" of the sign up process as has been the case in other "implemetation" examples. While the criticisms of the present may be justified, I'd call those kinda declarations premature should they be made, and which seems to be the implication.

No, there's not "plenty of time." There is roughly six weeks before the open period closes, and no indication that the problem can be repaired by then.

 

[trapdoor]

folks can apply for health insurance thru the exchanges on the internet, by phone: 1-800-318-2596 or (TTY: 1-855-889-4325), or in-person with an ACA navigator.
also, chains like Rite-Aid, Walgreens, etc. have staff who will help. don't forget regular insurance brokers can process applications as well.

there's no excuse for freeloaders not to do the right thing.

Oh please -- this law is about enabling freeloaders. If it weren't for that, there'd be no reason to force the unwilling to purchase a commercial product -- but the unwilling must be forced to do that or the financing to provide for the freeloaders won't be available.

 

[Mytzlplk]

So ineffective implementation has nothing to do with the efficacy of the programs? Really?

Of course not, kinda like the presence of a good apple crop is independent from an ability to eat them. That's the point, and if you can't understand it, get help elsewhere. It's only when you combine the two that problems arise. A lack of accessability to the apples might well make some of them rotten, but that's not the apple's problem in tis anaolgy -- it was agood apple. It has nothing to do with the fact that apple was a good one that was allowed to rot because someone didn't want to go to the effort required to get to it before it did. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...an-sign-up-despite-Web-woes/Pick-up-the-phone​

Not true -- I expected you to read the links in the text. The real case Slate made is that there are problems with the software architecture that could last well beyond the Dec. 15 deadline that people have to apply for insurance -- so people will face a penalty for failure to have insurance they couldn't access (but I assume that's not a legal problem) Here is the link you didn't follow about the fundamental flaws in the architecture -- http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...illion_lines_of_code_is_the_wrong_way_to.html

I don't care about their "coulds" in regards to how long the software problems will take to rectify, given the speculative nature of it all. I'll leave that up to people like you that want it all to fail, while staying close to your fainting couch over such problems that places that means of signing up in jeopardy. ​

Actually, yes, that charge would be valid because a key tenet of the law is that it acquires insurance payments from people who would not otherwise make them. A key worry among those who favor Obamacare is that it can't attract the "20-year-old slacker," without whom the laws financial structure simply won't work.

In other words, as someone who wants it all to fail, I'm supposed to believe that you want people to be something other than lazy, and to use the various other means of signing up? Imagine that, a con promoting and supporting laziness, simply because it will result in the desired failure. And you guys wonder why I keep asserting that lefties are simply "better" people, and demonstrably so. http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002887.htm ​

Who's ignoring that? The problem, however, is that the contract is supposed to be administered by the executive branch, and tests performed before implementation, to ensure that the law should be implemented correctly (of course the Obama administration is extremely selective about enforcing actual laws so maybe that's a non issue to Obama supporters). Yes, failure to provide this oversight and testing is a failure in the implementation of the law.

Imagine that, a personal responsibility and accountability con defending the failure of a contractor to perform a service/provide a product as contracted, and pinning the lion's share if not the entire blame on the customer they failed. It was tested before Oct 1, and found wanting, leaving them forced to go with what they had. As one who lives with a software owner and writer, I'm about as shocked as this guy http://wordofpie.com/2013/10/22/healthcare-gov-fiasco-shows-the-problems-in-federal-it/ and that's precisely why I see a major part of the problem stemming from the "contracting/outsourcing" situation behind it, the additional costs it leads to notwithstanding.​

The trouble with Slate's statement is that "inept" and "not playing straight" are not mutually exclusive.

​

Absolutely it is. We who opposed the law predicted implementation would be a train wreck and, surprise! It's a train wreck. And we haven't even got to the "fun" part where the IRS starts confiscating the tax returns of 20-somethings who have failed to enroll.

Then all those posts predicting these signup/implemetation failures prior to their realization from you and your fellow geniuses should be easy to find, no? Let's see them eh? The recent efforts to kill it with the debt ceiling negotiations on the part of repubs generally makes even less sense then, given the damage they did to themselves over something they were so sure was gonna self-destruct, no?​

No, there's not "plenty of time." There is roughly six weeks before the open period closes, and no indication that the problem can be repaired by then.

Of course there is. As I understand it, your BS apllies if and only if you want coverage on Jan 1.​

Open enrollment runs between October 1 and March 31. You don't have to sign up that first day. In fact, you may want to put off paying for it until December. Plans bought through the exchanges won't start until January 1.
December 14 is the cut-off date if you want your plan to start January 1. Open enrollment runs through March 31. If you sign up in January or February your coverage will start the following month. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/health/obamacare-open-enrollment/


and it's likely the good guys will have "more time". http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...st-health-care-penalty-deadline-guidance?lite

And if you can't wrap you mind around the hypocrisy of the repubs in this case, then as I noted at the start here, seek help elsewhere. You sure as [Unwelcome language removed] haven't posted anything here to undermine the validity of the charge. It's as plain as day to anyone with half a brain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ollout-is-awful-gops-position-is-a-lot-worse/

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/10/22/concern-trolling-as-art-form/
(that one best captures your type)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ut-people-who-can-t-get-health-nbsp-insurance

And this nonsense

"yes, software failures and the law are the same thing. The law is meaningless if it doesn't put programs in place, and it is a failure if those programs don't work. At this point, those programs do not work."
​

sure as hell doesn't get the job done, because the software is just one of multiple means by which one can sign up. And to say they are the "same thing" is not unlike you claiming that the rhetorical shovel you are using and the hole you are digging with it, are the "same thing" as well. Online signup is but one of many means to achieve the Obamacare participant end, like ordering your license and registration from your BMV online, as opposed to in person or through snail mail.​

 

[Renee]

When the software failures directly impact the implementation of the law via a much-touted program, yes, software failures and the law are the same thing. The law is meaningless if it doesn't put programs in place, and it is a failure if those programs don't work. At this point, those programs do not work.

And as reported in Slate magazine here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...roblems_the_president_s_message_may_make.html

they are unlikely to work for some time.

So when apple crashed when the new iPad came out, it means the iPad was no good, right?