Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Obama Calls on Private Sector IT Pros to fix HealthCare.gov

Tags:
Last response: in News comments
Share
October 21, 2013 6:50:52 PM

Go call one of the major MMORPG players. They know a thing or two about scalable hardware.

The fact that they have already spent 400 million on that joke of a site, is beyond sad at this point.

Some of the major game players probably could have done the entire thing for 30 million instead of 400 million, and it would probably work just fine(with perhaps the exception of day 1 congestion). As long as its not EA anyway; recent history has taught us they probably couldn't have done it any better, lol.
Score
10
October 21, 2013 7:13:12 PM

They should just junk what was built, copy the California website which works fine, change the branding here and there from California to Federal, and deploy it - problem solved!
Score
-9
October 21, 2013 7:15:07 PM

@MJW that doesn't account for the web traffic that a site receives on a National level. But I do agree to a certain extent if its not working maybe a re work should be done.
Score
7
October 21, 2013 7:15:09 PM

@MJW that doesn't account for the web traffic that a site receives on a National level. But I do agree to a certain extent if its not working maybe a re work should be done.
Score
-8
October 21, 2013 7:22:02 PM

this was made to fail and that has been the point the whole time, whats worse than the site is the health coverage you get when you sign up
Score
5
October 21, 2013 7:24:49 PM

So he wants people to fix a website for a broken healthcare system he implemented. irony.
Score
5
October 21, 2013 7:30:50 PM

Part of the problem are the regulations which control government procurement. They practically guarantee failure. The fact that the site functioned at all makes it look good compared to past IT projects of the FBI and IRS.
Score
10
October 21, 2013 7:38:09 PM

bigshootr8, Maybe if they had gone to the right people at first, US citizens instead of Canada, they may have found someone who could deal with the scalability problem. I'm sure people on this sight could name at least 10 companies who get more hits a day on their websites than healthcare.gov has had since it's release. Google, Facebook, eBay, Amazon, Microsoft, YouTube, Yahoo, Wikipedia, LinkedIn, Twitter. We have people who know how to do this but the administration needs to buy a raffle ticket for a tractor. Then they can tie a chain to it and pull their head out. With this level of planning the future might not be bright.
Score
3
October 21, 2013 7:48:16 PM

@leoscott while I'm not in favor of the bill I completely agree with you why not work with big companies like google, microsoft and amazon to get a site like that working correctly. I just feel in a lot of ways the government will always be technology challenged.
Score
2
October 21, 2013 7:50:07 PM

Obama Calls on Private Sector IT Pros to fix HealthCare.gov...because that is who the government hires to do such work.

I think it fair to say, that this is the largest public-interest web presence that the US has ever undertaken. It is also fair to say that V1 was beta released a tad bit early. It will get better.
Score
0
October 21, 2013 7:52:44 PM

COLGeek said:
Obama Calls on Private Sector IT Pros to fix HealthCare.gov...because that is who the government hires to do such work.

I think it fair to say, that this is the largest public-interest web presence that the US has ever undertaken. It is also fair to say that V1 was beta released a tad bit early. It will get better.


While it may or may not get better considering its the most Expensive web site ever assembled you'd think in the time that they've had to construct it it would be stronger and more well made and able to deal with more web traffic.
Score
4
October 21, 2013 7:54:48 PM

True, the roll-out was terrible and could have been much better. No argument there.
Score
3
October 21, 2013 8:03:00 PM

lol...I'm an IT person...how can I help and milk the system like the politicians are doing? ;-)
Score
9
October 21, 2013 8:22:41 PM

I can fix it...I have a big roll of duck tape! Duck tape fixes everything!
Score
4
October 21, 2013 8:44:25 PM

Funny that the private sector is coming to rescue the roll-out of a system that should never have been put in the hands of the public sector in the first place.

I can't wait until healthcare workers are eventually made federal employees. Then we get to see the rampant incompetence and waste of a national bureaucracy applied in a new and terrifying way.

Think about it.... This current farce is just the interface. A simple sign-on process. Does anyone in their right mind really think that managing a nation's healthcare system is going to be easier than the sign-up process? What do you think the healthcare is going to be like when they can't even handle a web page?

We deserve this. The Apathy, Laziness, and Greed of the American Voter may finally result in something that gets their attention.... but I doubt it.
Score
6
October 21, 2013 9:09:55 PM

maybe he should nationalize the IT sector next xD
Score
0
October 21, 2013 10:05:20 PM

Government/bureaucrats : creating solutions to problems it created.

Health care coverage is a choice for most people not a right. Government steps in to solve this "issue" by mandating insurance companies to cover any and all regardless of preexisting health issues - because the government knows best - and blames the gimped heartless free-market for being so discriminatory, which the government gimped in the first place, with previous regulations - because the government knows best.

Enter the all wise and knowing "solution" to the heartless freemarket: ObamaCare! The solution of the ruling class for the brain-dead "poor" majority.
Score
3
October 21, 2013 10:09:12 PM

This is a great example of why I cringe whenever I hear anyone in the government talk of doing anything "comprehensive". At least there is a chance of getting something right if they take it step by step and piece by piece, but when the idiots in DC try to tackle big issues all at once....this is what we get. Really getting sick of the "Elephant" and "Ass" show.
Score
0
October 22, 2013 12:21:03 AM

As a European, may I ask what everyone's problem is with the new health care system? I live in one of the most expensive countries in the world (US prices for most things I can only dream of) and better health coverage despite paying significantly less. Without saying Obama's specific implementation is any better I don't think the US system of "let the private sector dictate health care" has been a success, so chance seems of essence. Yet it doesn't seem like the problem the republicans have with the health care reform is the specific implementation, instead its that the government has anything to do with health care at all?
Or am I getting this all wrong? Its not always easy to decipher things across such a distance, so any explanation would be appreciated =)
Score
-1
October 22, 2013 12:55:54 AM

JonathanR said:
As a European, may I ask what everyone's problem is with the new health care system? I live in one of the most expensive countries in the world (US prices for most things I can only dream of) and better health coverage despite paying significantly less. Without saying Obama's specific implementation is any better I don't think the US system of "let the private sector dictate health care" has been a success, so chance seems of essence. Yet it doesn't seem like the problem the republicans have with the health care reform is the specific implementation, instead its that the government has anything to do with health care at all?
Or am I getting this all wrong? Its not always easy to decipher things across such a distance, so any explanation would be appreciated =)


The US "private sector" has not dictated anything in the past 50 some years. If you mean the sadly Marxist/national socialist system that has been slowly creeping into the system through the ever so growing government then yes, the ObamaCare would make every living Marxist proud.

In an actual free-market system (without any gov't coercion) the prices of health care would be a lot less (not just the USA); enter the government and you get regulated price-control that only serves the bought and paid for pocket-lining interest groups, hence the higher and higher prices and lower quality service (i.e. Canadian Health Care system, post 1960's).

Obamacare simply drains the system of resources that are already scares. And this is not Democrats vs Republicans; both parties are under the same corrupt special-interest system. Democrats buy their votes one way, while the Republicans do it another, both corrupting the nation through their unethical and immoral practices.
Score
15
October 22, 2013 1:13:20 AM

Re: JonathanR

As all information is inherently biased, a brief list of mine before I respond. (Lived in US entire life, liberal arts college educated in Social Sciences/History, currently working in IT, living in part of the US that is traditionally lower income.)

The problem of universal health care in the United States, ... is not health care at all. The issue is multi-faceted, all leading to one conclusion.

1. The USA has a two party political system, instead of a multi-party system. The USA has had this system, for the most part, since the country's inception. (Yes, there have been a few times when a third, and sometimes fourth, party would gain some national acceptance. However, two parties have traditionally dominated.
2. Americans, like most other "common" voters in democratic countries, either do not care about (or do not have the resources to acquire) the true background information about the people that run for election.
3. Today, almost all elections in the country, from the selection of a candidate for a party to the final vote to see who wins, are influenced, in some way, by the two political parties.
4. Generations of Americans have been taught that one party represents one thing, while the other party represents "the opposite" on all issues. Social welfare, military funding, civil rights (and to what extent they exist), gun (person weapon ownership) control, government budgeting... everything. If one party states one thing, the other party... will usually state the opposite.
5. Many of the ballots we use on election day even give the option to "vote for one party's candidates" instead of forcing people to vote for individuals.
6. The US, as a nation, was founded on the concept of "individual liberties and rights." In the modern day, two of these crucial liberties are "what money I make is mine" (lower taxes) and "I make my own decisions about my life" (don't control my life).
7. Finally, some history. The US has kept its "usually two party" system intact over the years by the two major parties absorbing "third" parties (and part of their platforms) if the third party gains any strength. (Historical example: Populist party and the Democratic Party. Modern example: Tea party and the Republican party.)

The Health care battle is not a battle over health care, itself. It is a battle between two completely different ideologies. On the one side, one party believes that the government should be smaller, provide less, tax less. Furthermore, that same party now has many members whose main platform is "balancing the federal budget." (Government run health care, as implemented with President Obama's system, will cost the national and sub-territories, states, more money.) On the other side, one party believes that government should be larger, should provide for its citizens more, tax more (to provide said services), etc.

The American people, for the most part, identify themselves as a Democrat or a Republican. They do this, usually, over one or two issues that they feel are most important, most likely hot topic social issues. (Examples: Should legal abortion exist? Should citizens be allowed to own guns? Should church and state, truly, be separated?)

"Joe" American, in regard to the health care bill, searches online for Health Care news, news about "his party" (the only party that is right, as the other party is the "enemy"), etc. He reads the things that back him up, and it is now fact. He reads something he doesn't agree with and simply closes the page, angry... or makes comments such as "stupid ... opposite party."

Most news outlets in the USA have a political leaning as well to their news reports. Thus, a member of a political party will listen to "completely accurate news" from one outlet, and... it is fact. A member of the opposite party will listen to a different outlet, and get different facts.

Compromise in our government is near impossible now. Unless one party controls both of the houses of our legislative branch and the presidency, no major bills will pass. Universal healthcare was passed when the Democrats had this control. Republicans, picking up Healthcare for obvious reasons (more taxes to pay for it, less control of an individual's rights) have made it a hot topic, and they now control one house of our legislature. As a result, the goal is to stop the bill from being implemented anyway they can. (It would happen the exact same way if the parties were switched, and the Republicans had passed something the Democrats could grab.)

I hope I have been as neutral as possible on the issue.
Score
7
October 22, 2013 1:59:33 AM

funny how some Republican politicians are complaining that their constituents cannot get onto the website because of high traffic... the website issues doesn't keep people from signing up. Parts of ACA has been operational for years. Places where its not working good is made to fail by red states...the same ones which suck up more money.
Score
-6
October 22, 2013 4:25:01 AM

@JonathanR

It's not just Europeans like you and I, it's literally the whole world except the United States (and even there a slim majority agrees with us), including former communist states that are generally very supportive of capitalism, that is baffled by the American healthcare "debate". The notion that financial success should determine your access to healthcare (so spammers and bankstersdeserve better healthcare than nurses and carpenters) is just entirely incomprehensible to everyone except far-right Americans.

This is waht my observations have yielded so far: American Republican politicians are in favor of fully private sector healthcare, this includes dismantling medicaid (a government healthcare program for the very poor) and medicare (a government healthcare program for anyone over the age of 65). Libertarian Republican voters agree with this but most Republican voters don't, not surprising since many of them are on medicare, to keep those voters aboard the Republican Party and Fox News bombard them with propaganda about Marxism and the evils of the healthcare systems in other country (the targeted audience is not known for traveling abroad much) and so you get polls that tell us all the individual components of Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) are very popular, but if you put the names "Obamacare" or "ACA" on them most Republican voters suddenly don't like the idea anymore.

@Radiovan

The entire world (and a majority of Americans) disagree with you, including all those Republican voting seniors who don't want anyone to touch their free medicare. But let's say you're right and fully privatized healthcare would yield the lowest cost per treatment possible. That would be great, in a world with zero income inequality and no pre-existing conditions, but that's not the world we live in so you'd end up with more affordable care for the wealthy and no, or only very basic, care for everyone else. Now since diseases are often contagious, sick people are not very productive and non-wealthy people would not go to a doctor until they almost drop down the whole system could even end up costing more than a European-style system.
Score
-8
October 22, 2013 4:33:50 AM

So after the billions they paid to traditional defense contractors exempt from the law, they are now asking the pros to bail them out? The same IT contractors (self-employed e.g. individual health plan) that have seen their premiums, copays, and deductibles doubled or tripled? Why am I not surprised.
Score
3
October 22, 2013 4:58:46 AM

abbadon_34 said:
So after the billions they paid to traditional defense contractors exempt from the law, they are now asking the pros to bail them out? The same IT contractors (self-employed e.g. individual health plan) that have seen their premiums, copays, and deductibles doubled or tripled? Why am I not surprised.


If the price went up for some that's because 50 million Americans used to be uninsured (and many millions of others, including IT contractors, underinsured, many being unaware of that fact until they have an accident or get sick). In any other country in the world people would roll their eyes at you for complaining about the price increase. Yet in the US it's apparently normal for people to want a discount at the expense of other people's lives.

Score
-4
October 22, 2013 5:24:49 AM

lol, the very people he has been crucifying are now helping him. I see the irony.
Score
0
October 22, 2013 5:29:01 AM

terr281 said:

On the other side, one party believes that government should be larger, should provide for its citizens more, tax more (to provide said services), etc.

That over-simplifies the positions of the two parties. In reality both want large government spending, they just want the spending in different areas. Republicans want large spending on the military and waging various wars around the world. Democrats want large spending on healthcare and education.

Republicans are somewhat contradictory, saying that government should stay out of people's lives but then try to institute laws that would for example force women who want abortions to undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound. So they want government to be deeply involved in women's health issues rather than prioritizing the freedom of the individual.

Republicans want to ensure that everyone has to register with a government issued ID in order to be able to vote (so that less poor people will be able to vote), but they will fight tooth and nail to prevent any sort of registration requirement for buying a gun.

Many republicans are also religious but seem to conveniently overlook Jesus's teaching on healing the sick, giving to the poor, turning the other cheek and thou shall not kill...

The positions are so contradictory and illogical in many cases that it's not surprising that these issues are so confusing to both Americans and non-americans.
Score
-3
October 22, 2013 5:44:03 AM

none12345 said:
Go call one of the major MMORPG players. They know a thing or two about scalable hardware.

The fact that they have already spent 400 million on that joke of a site, is beyond sad at this point.

Some of the major game players probably could have done the entire thing for 30 million instead of 400 million, and it would probably work just fine(with perhaps the exception of day 1 congestion). As long as its not EA anyway; recent history has taught us they probably couldn't have done it any better, lol.


Yes, because, no where in the Private Sector does this sort of thing ever happen. Sim City 5000 was freaking perfect when it launched and no one had problems logging on or long wait times to download .... nope no one was offered money returned for their inconvenience. None of that happened, ever.

Your comment is exactly why nothing gets moving these days in Washington you are so ideological you see the world through a lens that doesn't exist. Guess what same isht happens to private companies and $400 million wasn't spent on simply the site, moreover, private contracting companies built the site in the first place, the government directly employees very few people they bid out to the private sector on nearly everything including the building of this site.

This lala land of private world vs government means nothing because the US government contracts nearly everything it does to the private sector. Either way the article is false, the contract which was already given to a private sector company, is now being opened to hire a "sub-contractor" to the prime contractor to help fix it.
Score
-2
October 22, 2013 5:50:04 AM

Gulli said:
abbadon_34 said:
So after the billions they paid to traditional defense contractors exempt from the law, they are now asking the pros to bail them out? The same IT contractors (self-employed e.g. individual health plan) that have seen their premiums, copays, and deductibles doubled or tripled? Why am I not surprised.


If the price went up for some that's because 50 million Americans used to be uninsured (and many millions of others, including IT contractors, underinsured, many being unaware of that fact until they have an accident or get sick). In any other country in the world people would roll their eyes at you for complaining about the price increase. Yet in the US it's apparently normal for people to want a discount at the expense of other people's lives.



The price went down for many. I hate the health care debate because so few have bothered to do any real research and no isht about what they are saying.
Score
-3
October 22, 2013 5:53:14 AM

jhansonxi said:
Part of the problem are the regulations which control government procurement. They practically guarantee failure. The fact that the site functioned at all makes it look good compared to past IT projects of the FBI and IRS.


Yes, because PRISM was a complete failure. What are you people talking about? And e-File can't be any easier???

I'm not saying the government is perfect but people act as though the government is just complete and utterly clueless, the fact, I the US does many things extremely efficiently. And more over th eprivate sector does most of the governments work ... they are contracted to do so. People act as though the government is a direct employer , it's not at all, for most nearly everything it does.

Score
-1
October 22, 2013 6:00:00 AM

nicodemus_mm said:
Funny that the private sector is coming to rescue the roll-out of a system that should never have been put in the hands of the public sector in the first place.

I can't wait until healthcare workers are eventually made federal employees. Then we get to see the rampant incompetence and waste of a national bureaucracy applied in a new and terrifying way.

Think about it.... This current farce is just the interface. A simple sign-on process. Does anyone in their right mind really think that managing a nation's healthcare system is going to be easier than the sign-up process? What do you think the healthcare is going to be like when they can't even handle a web page?

We deserve this. The Apathy, Laziness, and Greed of the American Voter may finally result in something that gets their attention.... but I doubt it.


Man there are so many wrong comments in this I don't know where to start.

1) The private sector built the site to begin with, the government gives out contracts to the private sector for nearly everything it does, does the government build fighters, no it hires boing to do it, it gives them the contract. Firms bid on doing the work for the healthcare.gov, the exchange plans are administered by private insurers, etc ...

2) The issue is not the sign-on process it's the volume and it happens all the time, let's see, Warcraft online and Sim City come to mind as recent examples. Again though the hardware , the development again was managed by private sector companies, they are simply looking for another vendor outside of the prime contractor who has it now.

3) Uhm ... the government already runs one of the most efficient healthcare programs on the planet as examined by independent parties, Medicare, contrary to popular belief they aren't new to the game,... finally, the government isn't running the US healthcare system in the ACA, they are broadening the base of people insured to hopefully lower cost and are requiring states to be setup healthcare exchanges via private insurers.

Anyway, I don't even know why I bother to get into this debate because it's so few actually know what the f ... they are talking about in it.
Score
-2
October 22, 2013 6:07:15 AM

Anything the Government does only cost about 5x as much as a competent private company does and their stuff doesn't even work.
Score
3
October 22, 2013 6:50:52 AM

To our European friend: It has to do with the Constitution and the role of government. We are supposed to be a republic, with 50 soveign and independent states. We are supposed to worry more about our state governments, where we as individual citizens have more of a voice, than the national government. Our Founders understood that centralized power was threat to freedom, so they create a Constitution with specific enumerated powers for government. The federal government is supposed to limit itself ONLY to those powers. All other powers belong to the states. The federal government is supposed to do little more than focus on defense, currency, treaties, interstate trade, patents, and taxation. So programs that fall out of that are essentially unconstitutinal. A big government apologist would say that the Supreme Court has ruled it Constitutional. I would say that the SC has a long history of incorrect rulings such as Dredd Scott, Filburn, etc.

Those of us who oppose this law oppose it based on the role of government. It doesn't mean we don't want to help others. We just don't believe that government is the way to help anyone and we especially oppose the usurpation of power when representatives violate their oath by advocating for laws that fall outside of their enumerated powers.

We are supposed to have a system where a state can enact all the welfare, social security, and healthcare programs that its own citizens desire. NONE of those programs belong at he federal level, per our Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. All of this is spelled out in the Federalist Papers.

Usurpation of power puts us on the road to tyranny and goernment control of our healthcare means government control of our bodies.

So there you have it. That's the answer from an educated immigrant and veteran who associates with the Tea Party that gets demonized so much.
Score
4
October 22, 2013 6:52:52 AM

Sorry about my typos. I can't edit, for some reason.
Score
0
October 22, 2013 6:53:27 AM

One problem would be willing private sector IT pro's working on this shame of a website. Having worked for the government at one point I can tell you this: ALL HAIL THE PRIVATE SECTOR!. The amount of red tape you have to deal with in regards to government is insane. Nothing in the private sector even comes close to the bureaucratic non-sense you get with government.

As for the whole European healthcare compared to what the U.S. is "trying" to do, one has to understand that the two system of health care are different, that is not say there are not similarities.; they are also implemented differently, and the system of government and how it operates is different as well. So taking that into account what works for Europe may not work for the U.S. and vice versa.
Score
1
October 22, 2013 7:01:14 AM

This website was coordinated by the same type of people you have to deal with at the DMV or the post office. Is anyone the least bit surprised this is how the website turned out? Just wait until one of these people are in charge of finding you a kidney.
Score
2
October 22, 2013 7:38:22 AM

rfp313 said:
To our European friend: It has to do with the Constitution and the role of government. We are supposed to be a republic, with 50 soveign and independent states. We are supposed to worry more about our state governments, where we as individual citizens have more of a voice, than the national government. Our Founders understood that centralized power was threat to freedom, so they create a Constitution with specific enumerated powers for government. The federal government is supposed to limit itself ONLY to those powers. All other powers belong to the states. The federal government is supposed to do little more than focus on defense, currency, treaties, interstate trade, patents, and taxation. So programs that fall out of that are essentially unconstitutinal. A big government apologist would say that the Supreme Court has ruled it Constitutional. I would say that the SC has a long history of incorrect rulings such as Dredd Scott, Filburn, etc.

Those of us who oppose this law oppose it based on the role of government. It doesn't mean we don't want to help others. We just don't believe that government is the way to help anyone and we especially oppose the usurpation of power when representatives violate their oath by advocating for laws that fall outside of their enumerated powers.

We are supposed to have a system where a state can enact all the welfare, social security, and healthcare programs that its own citizens desire. NONE of those programs belong at he federal level, per our Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. All of this is spelled out in the Federalist Papers.

Usurpation of power puts us on the road to tyranny and goernment control of our healthcare means government control of our bodies.

So there you have it. That's the answer from an educated immigrant and veteran who associates with the Tea Party that gets demonized so much.


So how exactly are Wyoming or Alaska going to provide affordable healthcare on their own? If it's all up to the states you're asking people from poor states to choose between their job in their state and having healthcare coverage in another state. The whole notion of federal tyranny is alien to non-Americans, especially since some states in the US have populations bigger than that of medium-sized countries (why isn't California a tyranny if it's basically as powerful as half the US states combined?) Anyway most living constitutions are far younger than the US constitution and even the US constitution has changed a lot: there are now federal taxes, women can vote, slavery and segregation have been abolished, and gay people are finally getting real rights, there is no point in calling the constitution sacred, it's there to be changed by changing times if a consistent and diverse majority wants to do so. Opposition to federal healthcare laws needs to be based on arguments that show why exactly this is so much worse than all kinds of other powers the government has "usurped", also it would be nice if people left out all the diversionary tactics of yelling about communism, marxism and death panels, don't you think? An honest debate would be the tea party proposing to destroy medicare, medicaid and the EMTALA act along with the ACA act and letting the people vote on that. If they reject that proposal then apparently a majority of Americans is OK with the federal government "usurping" the power to do something with healthcare. Then it is time to let people vote on different ideas for government regulated (or even government run) healthcare. The only problem is the tea party (and republicans pretending to represent the tea party) are under the delusion they'd win that first vote, while their strategists and lobbyists know better and keep inventing new tools to avoid an actual vote.
Score
-3
October 22, 2013 7:40:43 AM

Grandmastersexsay said:
This website was coordinated by the same type of people you have to deal with at the DMV or the post office. Is anyone the least bit surprised this is how the website turned out? Just wait until one of these people are in charge of finding you a kidney.


The DMVs are run by the state and the post office is its own entity. A better comparison would be with the people who managed to set up a system that spies on pretty much the entire world (and stayed undetected for years).

Score
-4
October 22, 2013 7:41:20 AM

@JonathanR, many Americans have unfortunately bought into the idea that the old healthcare system isn't deeply flawed. The "full private sector" model is disastrous for many Americans... just Google for 'american medical bankruptcy'. Further, the old health model made it harder for people to try different employment models. Do lots of contracting? Want to be self-employed? But you're over 40? Your options were to pay ridiculously high premiums or go without. Now people have better options.

You're not wrong that a lot of the trouble was the implementation model; if we'd just expanded Medicare (which actually works quite well), that would have been much easier to implement. But that would have been a "single payer" system and "socialism" apparently.

The comparisons to big game launches are somewhat apt, but that ignores the fact that this system has to aggregate data across hundreds of different systems, and deals with different and complex regulations from many different states. Big Data companies like Google and Facebook are great at scale, but their systems are only as complex as they want them to be, and can add complexity over time; not an option here. The government procurement model makes things worse, but this was always going to be a rocky start.
Score
-2
October 22, 2013 8:12:24 AM

In an actual "Free market" health care system, we're all screwed. If the insurance companies are allowed to pick and choose who they insure, as they've been allowed to do, we have the same end result. Those that actually NEED the insurance, being unable to get it. The gov't has previously had no control over health care costs. That's why a simple trip to the ER can easily bankrupt so many people.
Score
-3
October 22, 2013 8:19:17 AM

Gulli said:
Grandmastersexsay said:
This website was coordinated by the same type of people you have to deal with at the DMV or the post office. Is anyone the least bit surprised this is how the website turned out? Just wait until one of these people are in charge of finding you a kidney.


The DMVs are run by the state and the post office is its own entity. A better comparison would be with the people who managed to set up a system that spies on pretty much the entire world (and stayed undetected for years).




First, the NSA is just as much its own entity as the post office, perhaps more so.

Most importantly, the idea that the NSA has stayed undetected is just laughable. Just because CNN, MSNBC, FOX hadn't talked about them hardly means they went undetected. It just means the American public are idiots.
Score
1
October 22, 2013 8:50:29 AM

The government got ripped off. 400million for a joke of a website??? Are they serious??? It doesn't even look that complicated compared to a miriad of other websites already seeing that kind of traffic every day. It's just a bunch of questionaires which input data into some kind of form, then a calculator that spits out how much OBAMA money you get, and plan prices to go with it.

Why the F did the government pay a foreign company for this website??? We have plenty of companies domestically that could have built it!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's an outrage in itself.

Strong-arming people to overpay for healthcare is very immoral in the eyes of the founding fathers. Democrats get away with it because it's a "tax", when has no real regulation under the constitution. It's still wrong. A typical retail worker, probably makes about $25k a year working full time. He's living paycheck to paycheck, barely able to afford his apartment, car insurance, groceries, and car. Now he's gotta struggle to make roughly $100 a month even after subsidies for catastrophic insurance that he doesn't need. And still have to pay for his doctors visits and prescriptions until he reaches his $6300 a year deductible or risk paying a tax of $250 for the first year and $700 a year after 2015. That's BS!!!!

I think once the sticker shock sets in in 2016, many people will jump ship to vote republican in the next election. I know i am, and i hate republicans, but in this case, i think they're right.
Score
1
October 22, 2013 9:07:52 AM

mjw said:
terr281 said:

On the other side, one party believes that government should be larger, should provide for its citizens more, tax more (to provide said services), etc.

That over-simplifies the positions of the two parties. In reality both want large government spending, they just want the spending in different areas. Republicans want ...


I purposefully made the position simple, so an outsider with no knowledge of our system could understand it. (As, at the root of our system, that is what the two parties call for. The reality may be different.)

Now, for my opinionated post:

The Republicans will not stop until the main people that back their party, the wealthy (money) and voters that back the party (those hot topic issues) have dismantled almost every social program the USA has. Cut payments to retirees, cut payments to the healthcare system for the poor, don't allow universal health care to be implemented... . (And, before someone says that the universal health care system was flawed because it wasn't universal, this is the fault of Republican state governments. They had a legally right position, but it doesn't change the fact that they took the universal out of universal health care.)

The Democrats, for their part, seem to be positioning the country down the path of "forever deficit spending." Spend, spend, spend... with no fiscal accountability. Social programs cost money, lots of money, and the USA's tax system/base, along with things like free trade, illegal immigration, stratification between the rich and poor increasing, the USA's changing position in the global political & economical stages over the past ~60-70 years... all make a system that over the long run will not work. (We, as a superpower, are collapsing just like the Soviet Union did, the empires of the European countries centuries ago, many empires that rules over various parts of the world centuries to many centuries ago.) Coupled with the fact that many military bases are based in Republican states, any Democrat (from one of those districts) that wishes to keep his post must also back the military, the building of more military weapons by manufacturers, ... .

Someone else, above, stated the problem easily. Lobbyists and their money. Lobbyists (and / or their backers, via other means) donate to election campaigns, and no matter a politician's party, they accept money from one group or another and then back laws the lobbyists will agree with. (And, with the distinct possibility that soon, companies will be given the same rights as individuals, ... they will have free speech, the ability to donate as much money to politicians as they want, the ability to sue "living" people for slander, ...)

The hopeful solution would be the removal of any organization, non-profit or for-profit, to make campaign contributions to politicians. A very strict limit on the amount that an individual person can give would also be put into place. The world runs on money. If politicians had to be accountable to people, instead of money, then things would be different. (Implement a recall system for almost all political postings, and things would also greatly be for the better.)

Unfortunately, I believe the only solution remaining is both political parties being replaced by others. Remove the backbone of both organizations, and start anew. Both are basically the same now, just pandering one set of issues or another to stay in power.
Score
-1
October 22, 2013 9:09:02 AM

Hmm, so Obama realizes the government can't build a web site and needs the private sector to do it right. Where is the realization about health care and to let the private sector do it right?
Score
1
October 22, 2013 9:53:22 AM

terr281 said:
Unfortunately, I believe the only solution remaining is both political parties being replaced by others. Remove the backbone of both organizations, and start anew. Both are basically the same now, just pandering one set of issues or another to stay in power.


Finally, another person who sees the real problem. One that unfortunately I doubt will ever change and will be the downfall of the country. Here's a wonderful example of how far bribing has gone, for anyone else curious. If only the founding fathers had put stricter regulations in the constitution and abroad to limit what Congress can do (these annual pay check increases are ridiculous, we can all agree). Then who's to say it'd work, since they'd try to change it...but hey, what if?

Anyways, I'm awaiting the dispersal of the middle class, which I am apart of, due to the gaffe of politicians and their "King", the corporations. I still don't doubt that we will actually default as a country very soon, and end up in more of a mess economically like the rest of the world.

Quote me on this, I don't really care, but sure, I'd like to be proven wrong in 10 to 40 years that Obamacare is a mistake. But based on multiple experiences with England's system, and Canada's system, as well as family who have dealt with both for many years, I can't help but be pessimistic. Just returned from Sherbrooke, Quebec from a visit with family, and the latest is ~48% of their pay checks goes to taxes. They're looking to increase it, and impose new tax as well to pay for the socialized medicine and programs/benefits. Not to mention that they're government also stipends parents who have children under 18 each year. Oh well...
Score
1
October 22, 2013 10:04:20 AM

"Yet in the US it's apparently normal for people to want a discount at the expense of other people's lives."

Yet in Gulli's country it's apparently normal for people to want free stuff at the expense of other people's money and labor. Not that the US is doing much better on that front. But like the saying goes, "You think it's expensive now, wait until it is free."
Score
2
October 22, 2013 10:39:04 AM

WhatMeWorry said:
Yet in Gulli's country it's apparently normal for people to want free stuff at the expense of other people's money and labor. Not that the US is doing much better on that front. But like the saying goes, "You think it's expensive now, wait until it is free."


Actually in my country everyone pays taxes and healthcare premiums, they also pay a capped amount for drugs or emergency care, it's a lot like the ACA. But, people on minimum wage don't pay for their coverage entirely (because they couldn't pay for food and the rent otherwise) and rich people pay a little more, if that bothers you, if you'd rather see young people on minimum wage die from appendicitis, or some infection, like people in Somalia or people in the dark ages, then that's your opinion, but don't pretend people get free stuff and average Joe gets ripped off for it because average Joe is exactly who wouldn't be able to afford premiums entirely, at least for some stage in his life, even if some magic of the free market lowers costs by 50% (something just about every expert and economist in the world agrees would not happen).
Score
-1
October 22, 2013 11:23:26 AM

Should of outsourced to a group of Indians. Then it would work better.
Score
1
October 22, 2013 1:08:14 PM

Its a scouting event...
Score
0
!