(143) comments Back to story

Susan Fennewald

The term Obamacare should never be used by the media - it should be the "Affordable Care Act" even in the headline portion. If you need it short - ACareAct or something similar.

Lars Faltskog

Well, that Bachmann broad sure used the "we need to get rid of Obamacare" phrase during her ill-fated presidential bid.

We all know she specifically used the term repeatedly so that her constituents could easily identify "Obamacare" with that "foreign-born" guy who wants to bring in that bad 'ol socialism to our god-given country.

Miss Priss

If Texas would learn from their huge mess of rolling out Medicaid then ObamaAre would have a shot at reducing healthcare costs. The Medicaid system in Texas is a complete debacle and it takes a genius to try and read the flow chart on it. Seriously look it up - it will crack you up. Texas doles out more in Medicaid funds to illegal immigrants than any other state because of the jacked up beauracracy of Medicaid. I find it ironic that the state that screams the loudest in opposition of ObamaCare spends the most on healthcare systems like Texas does.

Curtiss Brown

If you can't say anything else throw an illegal alien at 'em.

Paul Hyatt

You are so right Herb if they don't fight and just roll over then the Feds can do what they want with health care.... They can limit the elderly care and that will help drive down costs. They can ration the rest of the health care and that too will drive down the costs... If you love socialism so much Herb why not move to a socialist country and see what it is like.... BTW, have you even read the Nobama Care bill???? Do you even know what is in there???? I bet that you are like most of the Lame Stream Media and you don't have a clue, you are just being a PRAVDA (government) spokesman just like most in the media....

Chris Gimenez

Typical Hubris Taylor-ignoring the facts. obamacare was passed without ANY Republican support because everything they tried to inject into the making of the law was dismissed outright by a democrat-controlled Congress and a community-organizer president.

This is not meant to provide healthcare to more Americans, it's meant to control more Americans and ensure democrat voter registration. The public has been lied to by Obama, sebellius, reid, pelosi, and every other democrat. One of the primary writers of this bill-Max Baucus (D)-said obamacare is "a train wreck" coming down the tracks. You don't fix the tracks when a train wreck is approaching-you stop the train.

Gary Miller

Best said this go around.

If it's so good why do BHO's adoring supporters want out of it?

Carlos Ponce

This ACA bears little semblance to the ACA legislation passed by Congress with all the changes made by President Obama since he signed it. How can it be considered "The Law of the Land" when it does not apply to everyone? Like in the book "Animal Farm", "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Wake up People! The ACA can not be that great if it does not apply to the President, his family, Congress, their families, the Supreme Court Justices, etc. What ever happened to the equal protection under the laws clause? The constitutional guarantee that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness?

Kevin Lang

I have healthcare through work. I do not have to get my policy through the exchange. Members of Congress and the President get healthcare through work. They do not have to get it through the exchanges. Members of the Armed Forces get healthcare through work. They do not have to get health insurance through the exchanges. Workers at the plants in Texas City get health coverage through work, so they, too do not have to get it through the exchanges.

What I don't know about the benefits given to our elected officials is if the standards detailed in ACA apply to their policies.

Obamacare is NOT "government insurance", unless you are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. The primary benificiaries of Obamacare are the people that have either only had major medical policies or had no insurance at all due to either lack of affordability (subsidies) or because they were deemed uninsurable (pre-existing conditions). Whether having all of us under one "government insurance" umbrella was ever a goal of it, I don't know, but the legislation that survived was not designed to be universal.

Now, if universal, single-payer, government-provided coverage is what you want, feel free to write your legislators. I'm sure they'd be very happy to oblige.

Sara Cox

Congress will have to choose their policies through the exchanges. It will still be purchased by the taxpayers so it's still a pretty sweet deal. The ACA is no more socialist than the current system. The fact is that all insurance will be provided by insurance companies that must flow with the free market and compete just like they do now. The new laws about no exclusions, no lifetime limits, no dropping insurance when you get sick benefit everyone and is as it should have been but wasn't. If you don't like it, don't participate. The fines don't kick in until 2014 and by then we'll know if it's working or not. Maybe then I'll listen to complaints and Congress can begin to fix it as is suggested in this editorial.

Kevin Lang

saraishelafs, Congress does not currently have to buy their insurance through the exchanges. That is one of the items proposed by the Republicans as a possible way out of the shutdown, but currently, Congress, the White House, and teh Supreme Court get coverage directly from the taxpayers as a benefit, and the insurance they get is far different from that offered other federal employees, and far different from that offered to typical American workers.

Sara Cox

Yes, they do. Call a representative and ask. Their Federal insurance plan is no longer available. As I said, the taxpayers still pay for it but the selection is from the exchanges.


Looks like to me the significance of this ideology is more a benefit to the poor than anyone else. the poor will be with us always, and we as a civilized society have a mandate from God almighty to help them.
There are some who will, and there are more who will not, for one reason or another. We've had this argument before on this forum,...with different posters,..many who are no longer posting. So,..though we have different participants,..the mandate is the same,..and has not changed. Are there games being played in many of the helps services in this country? Certainly! There always will be games played, and cheaters, in anything which comes up! It is caused by the conditions of different individuals' hearts!
Many upright citizens CHEAT on their income tax returns EVERY year! Do I cheat on mine? NO! Many up right citizens, lie in order to collect welfare! Do I collect welfare? No!
I don't need to cheat on taxes, I don't need food stamps,....and I don't need Obama Health Care,...BUT that does not go to say, others have no need for those services!
Having said all that,..I can only wait for someone to want to SHUT the government down until we get laws repealed or NEGOTIATED away in order to TAKE every GUN I have in my possession. They say what is good for the GOOSE,....is good for the GANDER! So if a group of legislators can hook and crook to bypass one law of the land,...what is to stop another group of legislators from using the same tactics, to get what they want in the future, when everything else fails? Yea,...unhhh-hah....Amen? That right there concerns me!
In my opinion,...nobody closed the government down to get Obama Care, and so, I believe the government should not have been closed in an effort to get rid of it! There is a right way to do most anything,...and I must say I have a problem with the way this thing is being handled.
As I said earlier, we will see how it shakes out, and we will see, what future damage will be caused as a result of our children in their DC sandbox, not getting along.

George Croix

How do you propose to fix anything? Repair requires negotiation.
How do you propose to get any negotiating done, when the folks who passed it refuse to negotiate, after having not done any in the first place to pass the thing along straight party lines?
Negotiating in the real world means give and take.
In the Senate and the Oval Office it means do it my way or else nothing.
IMHO, the reason they refuse to even discuss any changes to the ACA is because they KNOW it's a great big boloxed up mess. There's no reason to give thousands of exemptions and waivers if the program is a good one as is.
You can keep your own insurance, and you can keep your own doctor. Period. End of story.
Hmmm...that would be a good place to start re-working an unworkable, dishonest, cronie favoring piece of legislation.


Isn't that the stance the House is taking on raising taxes? I'm just asking? Again, I 'm concerned that a precedence is being set here, weather we like it or not.
I'm reminded of when I was growing up and I'd get in a fight with one of my siblings. My parents would always,...always say,...it takes two to make a fight!
There is no difference between the Pot and the Kettle, the Goose and the Gander! There is enough blame to go around! Every halo in DC needs to be collected,...because if all of the hands up there were to be inspected, they would all be found super DIRTY, and polluted like their selfish hearts!

Curtiss Brown

Little historical revisionism there Croix. The 'side that passed it' had to do it alone because the other side would not participate in the process. Didn't want any part of it. What? . . . doesn't sound like them? You bet it does.

George Croix

They 'had' to 'deem' the legislation to be passed?
Had to?
Hi Mr. Pot.
Say hello back to Mr. Kettle.[beam]

Linda Matthews

We are all familiar with the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well, let me introduce to two other phrases, "If it's broken beyond repair, trash it." and "If implementation fails, the project is scrapped."

This ACA is not broken, it cannot be fixed and thus far has fail implementation, so trash it and scrap it.

George Croix

The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts was raising taxes. The House went along with that.
The other side of the aisle has gone along with...what?
The people we elect to send to DC in whatever job are supposed to do what's best for the country.
There is legitimate debate over whether Obamacare is best for anything.
Is there really any legitimate debate over the negative impact on an already crappy economy of raising taxes more on the fewer people who still have jobs? This ACA already is full of hidden taxes, and is ITSELF a tax according to the Supreme Court.
Maybe...if we s-t-r-e-t-c-h the meaning of legitimate a bit.[wink]
Perhaps if back in 2010 there had actually been an attempt at a bipartisan crafting of the ACA, rather than a unilateral writing then throat stuffing of it, things would be different.
Maybe not.
You've been the honcho before.
Did it ever work for you to bad mouth the people you needed to work with, then badmouth them again for not wanting to work with you for doing so?
Could YOU have gotten away with saying "I'm always ready to work with everybody to resolve problems, but I will not negotiate".
Right now, the only cure is toss them all out.
Then try not to make the same mistakes again.
That snowball in hell probably has a better chance of that...[sad]


Mr gecroix, are you saying the Republicans cast votes to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Are you saying the Republicans wanted to have a part in the healthcare program, but those mean DEMS kicked them out? Help me with this,...I'm just trying to piece it together.

George Croix

No, I'm saying exactly what I already wrote above. They went along with the expiration. Didn't fight for the 2% top after gaining a bit of ground in the middle.
They could have. Ergo, they let it go.
If you forfeit the game, you lose without having to play. You still lost.

Yes, by any substantive measure. There was only lip service 'inclusiveness' in the drafting of the ACA? Being locked out of the conference room for a while is hardly inclusion. [sad]
Can you name any inclusion of any note? I can't.
As an experienced leader, you have to be aware that the job of one is to give people a voice if you want them to buy into the plan. You don't even have to use their advice, but at least listen
I don't think it counts as inclusive to unilaterally knock out a bill in the wee hours of the morning, then requiring a vote on thousands of pages of 'legislation' before anyone has a chance to even read the thing. Surely you recall the famous words of Speaker Pelosi that "We have to pass the law, so we can find out what's in it".
That says it all, right there...
In fairness, fact is, even a host of Democrats were left in the dark during the ACA's writing. I bet they'd have liked to put their two cents in, too. Had more players been put in the game, we'd not now be having the problems we are with it.
Please, spare me the poor 'help me out' stuff. a player shouldn't try to play another one.
You are perfectly capable of digging this all up yourself, what little if any you don't already know.
It has not occurred to me to do the same to you.

Mick Phalen

Obamacare cannot be fixed - - - there cannot be enough money to pay for it, without rationing of services and/or medical professional shortages. But worse, it will add another level of government intrusion into our lives. Isn't Europe's current financial crisis enough of a lesson for us?

The argument that conservatives need to meet liberals half way is a spurious one. Since Johnson's Great Society in the 60's, liberals have demanded more and more government, and conservatives have "met them halfway", resulting in the mess of a bloated federal government that we have now.
Obamacare is just another government program that will be as poorly run as all other government programs. It's time conservatives stood their ground, and fighting Obamacare during the continuing resolution and the upcoming debt ceiling debates are as good a place as any to start.

I admire that Ted Cruz took a stand on principle, something, sadly, generally lacking from our conservative representatives. I hope that we see more and more demanding a reduction in federal government instead of "compromising" with liberals.

I'm tired of voting for conservatives who grow the federal government only half as fast as their "friends across the aisle". They need to live the principles they promised, and if we lose the next election, we consider what to do next.

Kevin Lang

As I recall, the Republicans were welcomed. However, they wanted nothing to do with it. They might have attended a few conference sessions, but after awhile, things proceeded without them.

I don't think the 108th and 109th Congresses bent over backwards to ensure Democratic contributions in all of their legislation. However, it sure would have been nice if the Republicans had a single ounce of blood, sweat, or tears in the ACA. However, should it turn out ok, I'll bet we'll hear about a lot of Republican contributions to it.

Chris Gimenez

You recall incorrectly Kevin. The dems controlled both houses and the fact is that the Republicans were locked out of the meetings over obamacare. The dems knew they were going to pass exactly what they wanted-although they didn't know what it was-and they didn't need the Republicans and weren't going to listen to them. It's amazing how you people try to rewrite the facts to put a good face on the disaster you've created with obamacare.

"You know, we have to pass this so we can find out what's in it." Nancy Pelosi

Kevin Lang

I'm not talking about the narrow scope of debates on the bills that eventually became law. I'm talking about the various committee meetings that were held prior to the drafting of what we now know as the ACA. This set of bills may have been munged together with Republican abstention (it wasn't all forced, after all--remember McConnell pulled the Republicans back).

Anyway, Republicans were very much involved in laying the foundation for what has become Obamacare. In fact, they were quite talkative about it, and even advocated for personal responsibility provisions. The appearance is that Republicans were very much for healthcare reform until it started to become evident that it would actually pass and that it would pass on Obama's watch. That may well not be the reality, but the circumstances sure give the perception some legs.

Just because this bill got no Republican support doesn't mean that it's not a product of committee meetings that included Republicans. It is not void of Republican contributions.

Yes, the final bill was passed with Republicans pretty much locked out of the process. However, Republicans were very involved in discussions about healthcare reform during the bulk of 2009, and dating even further back.

I really don't much care what face Obamacare earns. I'd like the discussions about it to be honest and cordial, though. I'm not sure that using a couple months window on a specific set of negotiations being used to extrapolate back and blotting out years of history as being particularly honest, though.

Curtiss Brown

Remember how we were all going to vote for Romney? Everybody was voting against Obama. Romney/what was his name? was the ticket. Yeah, everybody vote.

How'd that work out for ya?

George Croix

Hurry up and pay your 125 grand per person portion of the underfunded Medicaid.
You need to start saving up for the ACA payments...[smile]


Mr. gecroix,...no sir, I don't remember Nancy saying nothing like that! Harry might have said it, and he is highly capable of making such a statement. I have never here Nancy go off like that.
Fact is,...Hillary better watch out because if Nancy takes a notion,....well.......you will be seeing Nancy for Pres. signs popping up! WestEndCrusader, if you are reading this,.....you know It is true! Are you OUT there?
If you are out there,...holler at me, Mr. gecroix,...Mr. Lang, and Mr. Sverige1 don't ant to work with Old JBG, on these issues! [wink]

George Croix

"Mr. gecroix,...no sir, I don't remember Nancy saying nothing like that! Harry might have said it, and he is highly capable of making such a statement. I have never here Nancy go off like that. "

That'll be three Hail Mary's and three Our Fathers for you, jbgood.[beam]

Now, hold the fort and keep the hatches battened down, etc.
I'm going to be busy most of the time for a few months with deer hunting season that started last Saturday for us, and know how to prioritize the important stuff over the less so.
I need to spend my 101K before it drops to a .001K, no thanks to Nancy... [sad]


Hey! have a good trip!!

Lars Faltskog

That's right, geocrox, you need to use up your deer-hunting guns/ammo before Barry O takes them away from you (with his coalition of non-patriot Constitution Marauders/Raiders).

I am of the belief that 9 out the 10 of the ilk who vehemently is "against" this plan are the type of folks who were on Jimmy Kimmel the other night. They are the ones interviewed "man on the street" style where they preferred "Affordable Care Act" over "Obamacare"....not knowing it was one and the same.

They simply did not want to support a program launched by a man of color, and they regurgitated their anti-overreaching governmental clap-trap arguments. Of course, the interviewees used the lowest-level of language to express their thoughts - grasping for something to say with a mic in front of them.

Most were republican/conservative/teapartiers.

George Croix

The internet works out in the woods, too.
Allow me to repeat what is still certainly appropo:
You are a dishonest poster, hiding behind a moniker because you don't have the stones to come out in the open. Your inuendo is gutless and sophomoric and more often than not baseless supposition if not outright lies, or race baiting.
You would never dare to repeat your crap face to face. Certainly not more than once.
You are a coward, who makes things up because you can hide and get away with it.
You are as useful at solving problems andd facing issues as any other sideline heckler.
You don't like any of that, I don't care.
I'm not the one hiding.
Life as a cowardly liar isn't much of one.
Your choice to be so.
You're still dismissed.

Chris Gimenez

gecroix, you can pummel servitude1 with all the facts you want but he is deeply entrenched in supporting this country's march to socialism. His ideal day would be waking up to find his government check in the mail and a note from a government agency telling him what he needs to do that day.

He erroneously tries to blame the ignorance seen on the "man on the street" interviews on conservatives when it's obvious those being interviewed and providing stupid answers are always liberals. Those who can answer political and current event questions correctly are the Fox News viewers.

servitude1 is just a poignant example of the decline of our civilization.

Sara Cox

gecroix, have fun hunting. Insurance is probably the most socialistic institution except for public schools. The insurance companies collect money (premiums instead of taxes) from all the participants, then reapportion it to pay for the medical needs of some (not all) participants. I guess it makes it capitalism because they operate for profit, have stock holders and pay out as little as possible.

George Croix

Saraishelafs - thank you. I'm looking at a decent buck as I type this, but it's too early to settle for mediocre. Too hot and too windy today.
Yes, many of the things we have come to count on are 'socialistic'. Of course, we are not forced to pay a tax to the IRS if we choose not to buy most insurance.
There's nothing wrong with 'society' pooling resources. The rub is everyone needs to be a contributor who can be one, so that burdens are not unseemingly unequal for the pool members.
A nation of people where nearly half have become dependent on other people for all or part of their upkeep, and growing, many of which are just milkers and scammers, is not as much a 'socialistic' one, as a dying one...
Without the dreaded capitalists, one might well wonder where the money to pay taxes to support the 'socilaists' comes from...[beam]
Have a nice day.

Lars Faltskog

Response to gecroix posted at 10:16 am on Thu, Oct 3, 2013:

Er, must've hit a nerve. Was it the honest/accurate description of the typical conservative? You do realize that the segment on Kimmel "was what it was"....uninformed conservatives disliking a health care plan that is now law of the land, unwilling to let go of their need to cling to their need for "control".

"By golly, no 'dependent minority' is going to get another thing for free." We've heard it all before. Cold, hard fact is that, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the unemployment/underemployment of people in their 20s reflects the bleakness of eventual attainment of the American dream.

No amount of critiquing about the progressive population (us) is going to take away from the conclusion that this country is changing. The old/bitter fossils who sit in their retirement homes don't have to eek out a living of underemployment and meager wages.

Part of the relief for our struggling populace (and electorate) is receiving adequate health care. For all, not just the privileged. As the title of this piece says, "accept it, fix it, stop fighting it". Y'all were young once too, so have a heart.

Steve Fouga

Wow, it's really cool being an independent. Neither Republican nor Democrat. Neither conservative nor liberal. This means I can believe what I want and vote for whomever makes the most sense -- no matter what anyone else says. Of course I'm impacted by our elected officials and the laws they pass like everyone else here -- BUT IT DOESN'T EAT AT ME as much.



Amen my brother ( Mr. Jake Buckner)! I too am an Independent, and have been so for many years now. I, like you, WISED up and got cool! lolololololol [cool]

Gary Miller

Health care is a retail service, not a right. We are "entitled" to buy as much as we want.
Can't afford it? Who's fault is that? I didn't drop out of school, do drugs, get pregnant at 15 or vote for government handouts. My way paid for my health care. Your way can"t.
You are not my responcibility. Voting yourself part of my earnings doesn't mean you deserve it. It's still stealing even if the government does it for you.

Steve Fouga

Well, IHOG, what you're saying was true right up until the Affordable Care Act was passed. At that moment it became a right in the U.S., like it is in several other countries. God-given right? No, a legal right.

Lars Faltskog

! IHOG -

You constantly reference the folks who make unwise decisions (teen pregnancies, dropping out, etc.). The nation's problems of employing people and for the average person to even attain a semblence of middle class status is the reasoning behind something like ACA.

Yes, we happen to have teen pregnancies, druggies, and yes, we have folks who didn't pass their TAKS tests and felt school wasn't for them. Some of them, actually, are doing well if they found a vocation such as HVAC, welding, or something technical and in demand.

Then, you have the 20-somethings who went to school, had to borrow $, must pay that back, and if they're lucky - they got hired to work 30 hours part-time as an entry level employee.

Folks like you just don't get it. We have a few million people just like the paragraph I described above. They don't fit your category of governmental "stealing"...as much as you want to cast that wide net.

Chris Gimenez

servitdue1, those 20-somethings who went to school and are being hired to work 29 hrs./wk owe their good fortune to obama and his obamacare. BTW, explain to us dummies how obamacare is supposed to help someone attain middle-class status? Because they were paying too much for health insurance and now they're not? obamacare is supposed to run on the premiums being paid by kazillions of healthy, young people who haven't had insurance before. Where's the connection between someone being able to reach the middle-class and obamacare?

Kathy Porterfield

From bondage to spiritual faith to great courage to liberty to abundance to complacency to apathy, to dependence and then back into bondage.

America is mostly stuck in apathy today with a big push by the Liar in Chief to get us moving....into dependency and then to dictatorship.

Kathy Porterfield

Some Guy Named Tytler?

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

Chris Gimenez

The only company I know that measures success from the number of hits its website gets is YouTube. Every other business measures success by how many people purchase their product. This administration refuses to tell anyone how many people have purchased their product, all they want to talk about is how many have visited the website.

Kathy Porterfield

At the closing bell on Thursday the DOW was down to 14,996.

Obama said, "I thought it was going to be lower than that."

J. Shaffer

The only reason the stock market is down is that Republicans are trying to send the entire government and the population into financial ruin..... just to destroy a plan before it starts.

Probably because they will be unable to convince people later, when they find out that it actually IS a good idea.

If you really think the government should not be in healthcare, you wouldn't use the government to make women's health clinics 'safer' (and conveniently closed) when there were no safety issues there to begin with.

I already see the airwaves inundated with health care companies wanting your business.... and prices falling as they try to attract the first customers. Again, hard to convince me that this isn't 'free market economy', either.

Chris Gimenez

I think you're misunderstanding a lot of things. First, the market hasn't reacted as severely as the president would have like and that was my comment. He's the one trying to tank the market by saying so publicly. What women's clinics are you talking about-the ones where they murder unborn children?

As for seeing the airwaves inundated with healthcare companies advertising for business-I haven't seen any and what are you doing, checking each of them to see the "prices falling"? You're so typical of the left when they get exposed. The sky if falling, little children won't have their three free meals provided to them, their obamaphones will be taken away, etc.....

In short, you haven't said anything that had an ounce of fact behind it.

Kathy Porterfield

The Capitalist Party is offer -nothing- to the Socialist Party.

The 1% does not want to -give- the 99% anything.

Being part of the 1%, I have -already- worked for what I get.

If the 99% wants something, -get a job- and work for it.

Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 7:21 pm on Sun, Oct 6, 2013:

Well, BOvredisent - I happen to be one of those folks who, so far by the will of the gods, has not needed to utilize health care. But, I, like many folks who were conditioned to attain insurance (car, health, flood) find that having the security of something I might need later - in case of a catastrophe - then I will get it if I can. I realize that just b/c I don't need it now in my bless-ed health, that's not to say I won't need it later. I've seen my mom/dad, uncles, aunts eventually grow old, needing to see the doctor for vision, back, diabetes, and other ailments. However, many of these "young people who never have paid health premiums before" have something that we call "families".

Yes, let's factor the virtues of having insurance to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th power where we have families who invariably will have at least one member needing some kind of advanced health care to treat an ailment. This family likely has a mom and dad (if it's traditional) who both work. One of them (maybe both), very likely, working less than 40 hours. Neither of them have ever had health care made available to them and their family until NOW.

I actually can't believe I have to write this out and spell it out to you, but often the "republican way" connotes not being able to see the struggles that other, less fortunate folks have to face. We have millions in this country in the predicament in my above paragraph. You don't mean to tell me that this family's acquisition of health care is a step to attain middle class status? Perhaps I need to use a different term.

Chris Gimenez

I was trying to follow your bizarre rant but quite frankly, it was impossible to understand what you were trying to say.

The young people you're talking about aren't going to buy health insurance. They're going to wait until they need it because there's no incentive to do it until then. Many of the millions you're referring to aren't going to purchase it because it isn't free and they've been conditioned by this president and administration to free stuff.

Maybe in the next couple of weeks we'll hear from the HHS and your president as to how many have actually enrolled in this healthcare miracle. They darn sure don't want to talk about results right now-just how many hits they've had. Must be how they do it in the community organizing field.

George Croix

The truth shall set you free, unless you're a lying sycophant. Very 'progressive':

"The 21-year-old student from Georgia was cited in multiple articles as being one of the few, the proud, the successful to signed up for insurance through a federal exchange.
On his Facebook page, Henderson bragged about being interviewed by "The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chattanooga Times Free Press, The Huffington Post, Enroll America, and Politico," along with several local TV affiliates.
His story supposedly was proof that for all their glitches and problems - and the ambivalence of young people - the new health insurance exchanges were working after all.
Except it seems like it was all a lie.
Peter Suderman, writing at Reason, claims to have uncovered the truth.
"But in an exclusive phone interview this morning with Reason, Chad father's Bill contradicted virtually every major detail of the story the media can't get enough of," Suderman writes. "What's more, some of the details that Chad has released are also at odds with published rate schedules and how Obamacare officials say the enrollment system works."

Never let a crisis go to waste. Never underestimate the capacity for stupidity and/or gullibility of your 'base'...

Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 7:17 am on Mon, Oct 7, 2013:

My post was succint and topical, and you know it. BTW - young folks will buy the insurance because it is the law. Just as it is law to have liability insurance for one's vehicle - unless one lives in NYC and never intends to drive. Just as it is the law to participate in Social Security. Unless, an individual is lucky enough to have emassed a trust fund upon birth.

Sweet Sue LaRue

Trust Funds are so much fun. It is good to have money. It is good to have parents that worked, bought oil stocks and stuck to a budget. It is good to have two accountants and two attorneys.

In the old days there were signs that read "Will Work for Food".

Today there are signs that read "Won't Work for Food".

Chris Gimenez

Actually, it's "amassed" but that's beside the point. Participating in SS is not the law. There are numerous exclusions including teachers and Congress. Young people will buy the coverage because it's the law? Talk about going off into never-never land. BTW, I thought you were just complaining about all the debt they incurred getting their liberal arts degrees and now they can't find a full-time job. Getting confused aren't you?

Lars Faltskog

Well, BOvresident -
It's quite simple. Although we don't WANT to do something doesn't mean we will break the law and refuse to do it. We have to stop at stop lights (don't want to, but...). We have to get and ID badge if we want to visit our son at school (don't want to stop in the front area and so so, but...). We have to now pay for some sort of health coverage.

Sure, we can choose to not do these things and look eventually take the consequences: 1. ticket, 2. roastin' and a toastin' from school officials and ban from premises, 3. $95 penalty to add on to tax returns.

Bottom line, we are NOT totally free in this country. But, harping about a national health care plan's flaws are not my idea of being a patriot "guardian" of the Constitution. It's realizing a necessary creation of a plan so that folks don't walk around diseased. Or, do we want to bring back the polio epidemic b/c this "socialist" plan is un-American?

By the way, teachers, although they don't specifically pay into the Soc. Security system, they still pay into that concept called Teacher Retirement Service. Of course, as I mentioned - no one is required to participate in Soc. Security if he/she is swimming in dollar bills.

Lars Faltskog

One day you or I will say, "I am Obamacare". -


Chris Gimenez

There you go with the huff-n-puff post again. It's like listening to someone regurgitate the obama administration talking points. As for your previous missive being "succinct", it reminds me of the old Hank Williams song, "Ramblin' Man".

Here's some more reality of obamacare. I'm just glad it's hitting the obama supporters where they hurt the most-their own pocketbook instead of someone else's.


The blinders and rose-colored glasses are starting to come off and it couldn't happen in a better place than California.

Chris Gimenez


More good news for the sheeple.

Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 7:01 am on Wed, Oct 9, 2013:

Well, BOv -
Looks like the website that the link refers to demonstrates a fair assessment of newly-applying potential care recipients. If he/she has good credit - lower premiums. If bad credit - higher premiums. Sounds like some accountability and not "free handout" and such.

Would you rather have it be a quick "one stop" where all is awarded equally? I dare say that would be "socialist".

Chris Gimenez

I knew I'd have to explain this to you. Do you remember your president telling anyone that their credit scores would be part of their application? Do you remember your president telling anyone that their personal information would be made available to law enforcement without their authorization?

Do you remember your president telling anyone that their current plans-outside of obamacare-would be forced into providing coverages they didn't want or need but would be forced to pay for?

My point-and I'm going slowly so you can get it-is that obamacare has been a charade foisted on the American public. On the local news last night a general practitioner said neither her nor any of her colleagues had been sent any information or been otherwise contacted by the obamacare insurers asking them to be included in their plans and what their reimbursements would be. That's why there is a lack of physicians in the obamacare network and another reason why this is going to be such a massive failure.


Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 11:59 am on Wed, Oct 9, 2013:

Er, sorry. Don't believe ya.

Plus, I would imagine that quite a few doctors would opt to retire, or take a role as a consultant - as nurse practitioners do more routine duties that don't require an M.D. Times, they're a changin'.

Chris Gimenez

I didn't really expect you to fall for the facts. You haven't done it to-date so no sense in starting now.

Gary Miller

Two million middle income citizens of California got their new health care bills last week.
Increases of $600 to $10,000 a year were common. When they asked why the increase they were told someone must pay for ObamaCare. Your it.
Residents of Long Island got bills with increases from $400 to $1,100 a year. Why? Because someone must pay for ObamaCare.
A michigan student when joining an exchange was told his cost would be $450. Not bad he thought until he learned that was the cost per week. Why? Someone must pay for ObamaCare.
Young healthy people have a legal way to avoid ObamaCare. Pay the $95 a year fine instead of the $3,000+ a year cost. They can wait until they have a big doctor bill and join then.

ObamaCare was designed to fail. The designers said it's failure would bring in a single payers system. But only if Democrats can get control of the House.

Gary Miller


Canada and several EU countries legalized private health care to reduce public costs. My German brother in law switched and got same day service when National health system people were waiting weeks to get an apointment to see a Doctor later. They must sometimes travel hours to get the appointments, then travel hours to see the doctor. If they didn't have time to get to the Doctor on time they had to go back and get another appointment. Free isn't really free.
Dying before getting an appointment to see a doctor is just one cost of free.

Gary Miller


Are you a proponent of "go along to get along".
Or suffer in silence if you can't win.
I subscribe to fight until you lose.

Kevin Lang

What is the definition of "lose" here?

Sometimes in war, there is a need to retreat, regroup, and re-engage. Perhaps the smart thing to do is to back away, let things develop a little bit, fight some other battles, and, perhaps when it's time to re-engage, you'll have even more allies. Sure, you risk that the enemy might get re-fortified, too, but by continuing this fight, the Tea Party and the rest of the conservatives may not be able to engage in the OTHER fights that need to be won. If the Tea Party were to successfully address the other 90% or so of the budget, they probably will win most of this one, too. However, if they continue this fight, and are perceived to have lost it, they may not have many opportunities in the fights that lie ahead.

Lars Faltskog

Were the Cananda national health care patients traveling "long distances" - by starting at Whitehorse, with destination in Montreal? LOL

I've heard that non-major surgery can have "long wait" times, but at an urgent emergency, they "get right in". And, Canadians generally say they wouldn't trade their plan for anything else. Interesting video -


Chris Gimenez

This is something that's going to be more and more evident as everyone finds out that obamacare not only isn't free, it's damn expensive.


George Croix

The months long mantra before the final 'deemed to have passed' shoving of the ACA down the nation's throat was how it was 'necessary to provide medical insurance for the 30 million uninsured people in the country'.
Now, after being passed, screwed up, selectively waivered, avoided like the plague for use by the folks who imposed it on everyone else, not ready for use after 3 years of prep, and already RAISING costs for everyone who has to pay the bills for it, and surprising the rest with hoiw much out of their OWN pockets they'll be hit for in direct fees and taxes and penalties, ther CBO says we'll STILL have about 30 million people uninsured.
All theis ^%*&$# for nothing. Screw up the health care of the folks who had earned their own after decades of work, just to make a political point and do a little more redistributing.
Very 'progressive'...

Gary Miller


In 2008 the IRS reported 151 million tax returns. In 2013 they reported 139 million tax returns. 12 million fewer people earning taxable income? While the population grew 7 million.
Worse many of them have OBAMA Doesn't Care jobs. Second and third jobs to pay their bills.
When BHO brags about creating jobs he's counting Obama Don't Care jobs, not real full employment jobs. Nearly half of college grads are un employed a year after graduation. Most of the rest have minimum wage jobs.
Every group that supported him has been harmed by his policies, all except his money donnors. They were rewarded with stimulus funds.
Anyone saying anything good about BHO deserves the Community Organizer they elected.

I wounder if you actually know what a community organizer is?
A thug that uses gifts, promisses or cash to buy votes for his bosses.

Chris Gimenez

obamacare is dying on the vine but the democrat party and their community organizer president refuse to admit it. Their philosophy is to keep throwing money at their entitlements in the hope that one day they can claim a victory. This is a direct result of none of this administration having any real world business experience. When all you've ever done is leach off the hard work of others it's impossible to understand how something like obamacare can't work.

Originally allocated $97 million for building the website-current expenditure for a non-working system is now $634 million. Only democrats believe that is success.

Lars Faltskog

Response to IHOG posted at 10:40 pm on Wed, Oct 9, 2013:

Well, ! IHOG ! - Nearly every young adult I know vehemently distances himself/herself from anything having to do with Republicanism/TeaPartyism.

You mention "Obama Don't Care" jobs not being a positive force in the goal to create employment, yet you don't offer solutions as to who or what can do better. Each management seminar I have attended has advocated that when one points out and/or criticizes in regard to a problem, that a SOLUTION must be suggested. That's good management. What's your solution?

Chris Gimenez

I'm quite sure those young people you know do distance themselves from responsibility and accountability. I mean, the majority of them are probably enjoying too many entitlements to even consider working for a living.

Chris Gimenez

The reality of obamacare and it's dereliction in protecting the public from nefarious characters is already starting to expose itself in the first two weeks. I know I'll probably get lambasted by lang and servitude for doing this but I feel I owe it to my fellow man.


Anybody think this is going to be an isolated case since they aren't doing any background checks on these "navigators"?

Kevin Lang

I've never asserted anything of the sort that this program wouldn't have problems. I've never stated anything of the sort that we should just leave it be. What I have repeated is that we should monitor it and take action to fix issues as they come up. You seem so surprised that there are problems. It's almost as if your recollection of every big government program undertaken in our lives is one of panacea. As many times as you've repeatedly told us of your innate wisdom, I would have thought that you'd have made sure that the government officials--especially the conservative ones--had at least one finger on the pulse of the Obamacare implementation while the other 9 fingers and all 10 toes were committed to deleting it.

The liberals and progressives that also stood by without oversight deserve lots of blame for the issues, too. However, it might be easier to excuse them because, after all, they were sold that this act was the magic pill. The conservative approach has always been that ACA is a poison pill, and their whole tactic was to try to prevent its manufacturer, never once considering an attempt at finding an antidote just in case. If the wise conservatives didn't think much about antidotes, why should we be surprised if the dimwit Democrats didn't think of that?

George Croix

Think of the money being saved, all of which adds to the overall promised savings of the ACA, by NOT training and vetting the 'navigators' beyond the token level, and by NOT having to verify the eligibility of applicants for subsidies.
The honor system(s) at work for you... [wink]

Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 1:23 pm on Mon, Oct 14, 2013:

Well, I "ditto" a similar sentiment by saying the following - Who said there would be no glitches or that this new health plan would be exempt from some type of fraud/laundering/ et cetera? All large, national organizations have cases of mismanagement and inefficiency.

I suppose we should dismantle all big organizations for their mismanagements: social security, the Catholic church. Let's see, let's also ban the United Way, Unicef, Cancer Fund of the US, Children's Wish, American Veterans. God forbid that we start another albatross (ACA) [note sarcasm]

Chris Gimenez

I never cease to be amazed at how the left can so easily accept incompetency and deficiencies and the waste of our tax dollars. It's two weeks in and there are no more glitches-they're now called FAILURES! After three years and $580 MILLION more than it was supposed to have cost, the system is a complete failure.

As for most of the other organizations you list-I don't know what specific problems you're referring to but the difference is that our tax dollars are being wasted on obamacare and the rest of them receive voluntary contributions from the public.

Kevin Lang

You might want to do some research on the Strategic Defense Initiative as an example of a worthy government program that had lots of costly failures before any sound technological and operational foundation was laid.

Seeing as how the 4-year-old response to Obamacare by the conservatives is to scream for cancelling it, and putting no alternative oversights in place to attempt to regulate the failure rate or the tax bleeding, we could argue that conservatives have likewise easily accepted incompetence and deficiencies. Conservatives are quick to note how poorly liberals mind the government cashbox. I'm not sure that turning your back and leaving them with an open cashdrawer is a good example of minding the store.

Despite the liberal oppostition to the Viet Nam war, lots of radicals served their tours of duty honorably and valiantly. The fact they hated the cause didn't prevent them from performing their duties. Monitoring governments activities--whether you're for them or against them--should be one of the top priorities of all of our lawmakers. If it isn't, well, they shouldn't be there.

Chris Gimenez

Lang, you are getting more and more like servitude1 every day. The takeover of 1/6 of our economy by obamacare is in no way related to the democrat started and democrat run and republican ended Vietnam War. Nor is it in any way comparable to a defense system that was initiated to take us away from the Cold-War era philosophy of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

Stay focused-if you can-on the reality of a government program that passed on a purely partisan vote, designed by a group that didn't have a single person who had ever dealt with any such project before in their lives, placed under the control of the Dept. of Health & Human Services that's had three years to build the software-software which is now proving to lack even the most basic programming capabilities, even before the first person had signed it's cost more than 7 times what it was supposed to cost, your president has unconstitutionally changed parts of the law to support his party supporters and unions, he's granted more than 2500 exemptions to businesses and organizations without Congress' approval, it's caused hundreds of thousands of employees to either lose their jobs or to be placed on part-time status, the "navigators" in the system are being allowed access to the most personal private information of applicants without themselves having been background-checked, the majority of doctors haven't even been contacted about being part of this system, and you say-"Let's give it more time and money to see how it works out".

And you try to convince us you're not a tax-and-spend liberal? It's not believable.

Kevin Lang

1) The votes aren't there to get rid of it
2) It's here now
3) Everything in government, if it isn't managed, the costs go overboard
4) The Republicans completely ignored both 1 & 3. It's no surprise that it has problems.
5) You keep latching firm to #1, despite the fact that it's currently a lost cause.

I don't know, nor do I care, whether you're conservative, liberal, or a loon. The evidence, though, sure as heck points to some kind of quixotic venture.

Right now, the best placed efforts would be on making sure that it works as good as it can, and making sure it doesn't work anywhere near as bad as it can. Of course, that would first require the self-proclaimed conservatives to recognize that they have to consider much more than just the first item on their list.

Whether it's a good law or a bad law is certainly worthy of debate. However, not at the expense of letting it burn money while our lawmakers fiddle with non-productive arguments.

Kevin Lang

It seems that your preference is for spending. Since you're championing for the people that only want to talk about killing it, rather than also talking about ways to make it at least somewhat useful. Everyday your favored politicians promise to kill it in 2016, the program continues to burn money. Sounds pretty liberal to me. Seems to be one of those forest and trees analogies.

Chris Gimenez







George Croix

It's a good law.
Good for raising costs, not cutting them.
Good for knocking people into part time work status from a former 40 hour week.
Good for giving waivers to cronies.
Good for giving thousands of poorly vetted and trained 'navigators' acces to you health AND financial records.
Good for favoritism carveouts to keep Trumka , et al, from openly revolting.
Good for finding a new doctor when you actually can't keep your own.
Good for young people, who are unlikley to be stupid enough to pay thousands per year for health care they don't need, and can pay a piddling 'tax' instead, then get coverage anytime they ask for it.
Good that, because of the above, the ACA will collapse under it's own weight, hpefully before our economy is totally wrecked by it.
The Republicans and the Tea Party folks should just let it do so.

Kevin Lang

Essentially, that's just what the Republicans and Tea Party and Democrats are doing. Evidently, no one in DC knows or cares a lick about stewardship.

George Croix

The first clue was the 'guarantee' that costs would go down while 30 million MORE 'customers' were added, with more benefits required to be provided by the insurers to everyone, need them or not.
The second clue was when the framers of the law pushed it through with ZERO opposition support, and without, themselves even knowing what all was in it.
The third clue was when those same folks exempted themselves from what they said we all needed to have, and then proceeded to give out another couple of thousand 'waivers' to cronies from something they had hyped as wonderful.
The fourth clue is happening right now - a cluster whatever of a 'roll out', despite 3 years and a half Billion dollars more than projected cost spent to get the sign up system ready.
In a nutshell, it's based on principals and assumptions and actions that require one to be stupid to believe in.
All the stewards in the world can't fix stupid.
Now, it's no longer even a law.
It's a sacred cow.
No matter HOW much harm or damage it causes, the ones in bed with it will never admit any failure, but will keep BREAKING the law they keep yammering IS the law of the land (evidently, they got a wiaver on that for themselves...), for everybody else, by unilaterally enforcing only what they want - cherry picking.
Before long, it will have so many Band Aids and so much bubble gum and bailing wire and duct tape on it, it will disappear from any semblance of what it says it was supposed to be.
NOBODY would keep using a doctor or a mechanic or a carpenter or plumber or whatever who promised one thing, delivered anything but, screwed up the job, lied about what the final cost was, charged your neighbor less than you for the same work, and then cursed you out for being 'extreme' and 'reckless' and such for not letting them screw you while you kept a smile on your face.
Playing to the base.
It's never been about reforming health care. If it were, actual doctors would have done more work on it than politicians. it's all about powwer and control, and increasing the culture of dependency.
That, too, can't be fixed...

Kevin Lang

House and Senate members and their staffs are NOT exempted from the law. In fact, they all must use the Health Insurance Exchange to purchase their policies. If they choose not to buy insurance, I believe they still fall under the penalites of the individual mandate.

I don't know how much input doctors and other medical service delivery folks had in the bill. The insurance companies, however, chimed in with plenty of their input.

Just because the GOP did not participate in the debates on the ACA as it was finally crafted for final review, you cannot say that there was no "opposition" input. Much of the old guard GOP was actually in favor of many of the provisions they now put down. Their opposition was triggered far more by the Tea Party than by anything the Democrats wrote in.

George Croix

I didn't say they were exempt from the law. I said they exempted themselves from what the rest of us have.
Most of us in their salary range will get no subsidies, yet staff members were originally granted them, and some still are (see below). In fact, they were placed under the rules of the ACA IMMEDIATELY after it was passed in 2010, but the Administration decided, on their own, to have taxpayers pay the difference in costs for them, to date, even though such was NOT in the law.
THAT is what I meant from exempt from what the rest of us get, even if poorly defined by me initially.

More recently:
"Members of Congress and their staff who will have to get their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act would continue to receive a government contribution toward premiums next year but only if they enroll in a specific ACA plan, under a revised Obama administration policy unveiled Monday.
The policy was issued as House Republican leaders floated a plan, as part of the maneuvering over the budgetary deadlock, to end that contribution for Congress and certain employees who will be forced out of their current health program.
The administration’s policy would keep the subsidy in place only for members of Congress and affected staff who enroll in a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) plan to become available in the District of Columbia. Such plans most commonly will be aimed at employees of businesses with fewer than 50 workers.
Members of Congress and Capitol Hill workers, like almost all other federal employees, currently are eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, in which the government pays about 70 percent of the total premium cost on average. However, under the ACA, House and Senate members and certain personal staff — although not other Hill employees — instead will have to get their insurance through the ACA’s marketplace effective with the 2014 calendar year.
That provision was put in the law because of pressures to have Congress experience the same health coverage under the ACA as what’s to be available to the general public. However, it caused uncertainty over which congressional staffers will be affected and the status of the employer contribution. Those questions resulted in a hold being placed for a short time on the nominee to head the Office of Personnel Management, a position that has been vacant since April.
Proposed rules issued in August by OPM said that each member of Congress would decide annually who are employees of their “official offices” as described by the law; some Capitol Hill employees are paid partly from office funds and partly from committee funds, for example.
Those rules also said that the government-paid share of premiums could continue for those forced out of the FEHBP program, reasoning that the ACA did not repeal the separate authority covering the FEHBP premium formula. OPM further decided to apply the same cost-sharing formula as for an FEHBP plan, meaning an employer share of up to 75 percent.
In final rules set for publication Wednesday, OPM says that “numerous” commenters on the proposed rules “asserted that Members of Congress and congressional staff should be subject to the same requirements as citizens purchasing insurance on the Exchanges, including individual responsibility for premiums and income restrictions for premium assistance.”
Some members of Congress have raised similar arguments since even before the draft rules were issued, leading to a series of proposals to end the subsidy, at least for themselves."

Right now, if the report on the toob I just heard is correct, all of the idiots up there are 'negotiating' no subsidies or carveouts for the folks who piled this mess on the rest of us, as part of the sham 'budget talks' CR.

Kevin Lang

I expect a lot more rhetoric on this before they boldly accept the "employer contribution". I think something worth watching is whether that "employer contribution" that we give them turns out to be bigger than the one we've been giving them since who knows when (way prior to ACA).

Chris Gimenez

Yep, Lang wants to keep chirping as to how the Republicans had "input" and that's to provide the democrats cover for what they hath wrought on the American public. The facts are the facts-obamacare is a 100% democrat only supported plan, created by the democrats, voted into law by the democrats, and not a damn one of them knew what was in it.

The blame game is already in play trying to put any kind of responsibility for this monstrosity on Republicans. It's the mindset of the left-never be held accountable, never be wrong, never quit blaming the other side for what they themselves have done.

George Croix

In 'progessivespeak', you get to claim that your opponents' openly voicing their opposition to a bill being stuffed down their throat constitutes 'input'.
It works that way when your philosophy of governing is that the other guy should shut up and give you everything you want, half the country be damned.
If alive today, King George III would fit right in...

Kevin Lang

Perhaps you two need to review the 2008 discussions, and even the early 2009 ones. The Republicans didn't bail on ACA until the Tea Party started screaming around August 2009.

I'm sorry, but in the world I live in, you don't get to erase years of participation with a temper tantrum. The Republicans were active participants in the debate, and there are many provisions in the final bill that were developed by Republicans and Democrats working together in committee.

To say that they didn't vote for it is pretty accurate. To say they had nothing to do with the law enacted is false. In their role in our government, despite their protests, they still have stewardship responsibilties. Being against something does not absolve them from their ownership obligations.

It's as true in government as it's true in battle--either we hang together or we hang separately. Unless or until there's a coinciding desire and ability to repeal, enacting, enforcing, and stewarding the laws of the country are the responsibility of every citizen and lawmaker in the country.

Chris Gimenez

Provide some facts lang. What provisions? The Republicans tried to enter into the discussions but were literally locked out of the chambers by the democrats. Your attempt to revise history won't hold water. Stewardship comes from the party in control-at that time the democrats. Only if there is an equal sharing of power does stewardship get assigned to both parties. Your argument would say that the public also has stewardship responsibility for obamacare even though they had absolutely no opportunity to make any of the rules.

And what 2008 discussions are you talking about? obama took office in January of 2009 and the takeover of healthcare was initiated under his watch.

I also see that you want to blame the emergence of the Tea Party for something here but I can't quite put my finger on it-wait, you and servitude1 can't stand anyone trying to keep the democrats from bankrupting this country. Now I understand.

Kevin Lang

Healthcare has been on the agenda in just about every session of Congress since Clinton was in office. Yes, even during the Bush years.

Throughout most of 2009, there weren't enough Democrats on board to pass it. There were half a dozen Senate Republicans that were on the fence, and very well might have voted for it. There was Republican support for both the individual and employer mandates until the Tea Party convinced them they were against it.

It certainly wasn't a broad bipartisan bill, but to claim that Republicans didn't help build it is just plain false. Maybe those Republicans are in fact RINOs, but they still had the "-R" after their names, and their leadership put them on the committees.

The ACA needs lot of help. That's been true since it was initially passed, and it's still true today. It's apparent that your idea of help isn't going to happen. So, maybe it's time for some statemenship, ownership, and stewardship? Or, do you prefer that the reputation of our government and nation just go down in flames over one argument that couldn't be won, when there are dozens of arguments--many more important than ACA--that we need to have? I think it's obvious where your sentiment lies.

George Croix

How about that. I helped to draft and pass and promote the ACA, because I participated in 'discussions' in these forums, ergo, I participated.
Not a single idea I had was used, or objection noted and changes made, and I didn't vote to pass it, but, by golly, I 'participated', so I own a little bitty chunck of it.
Where in the Milky way galaxy is the solar system that contains the world you live in, you one?[lol]

Kevin Lang

You want to claim that there are no Republican ideas in the ACA? You might want to reconsider that revisioning.

Chris Gimenez

Which ideas are they lang? You keep saying it but you don't provide proof. What is the idea and who supported it on the GOP side? You can't do it because neither you nor anyone else understands what's in it.

Kevin Lang

Where are the facts that the GOP had nothing to do with ACA? I imagine that while you're digging up those references, you'll crash into all kinds of stuff that the committee stuffed in that were GOP ideas. Here's a free one for you, though. The amendment that placed Congress and Congressional Staff INTO the Health Insurance Exchange rather than the current Federal Employee Health Plan. Courtesy of Grassley.

Chris Gimenez

OK lang, so I disagree that the GOP had any input into the ACA-at least anything significant-and you want me to prove a negative. Nice try but you made the statement to the affirmative so it's really your responsibility to back it up.

Chris Gimenez

lang, here's something you and servitude should read. This is more factual than anything you've stated on here as being "factual".


The line to note in this link is what your president said after he won the election and it set the tone for his entire presidency. "With those two words — “I won” — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4". Case closed about who is the obstructionist and who holds the blame for the state of this country and the possibility of default.

Kevin Lang

So, what you want is that after every election, congress and the president have to re-visit and re-approve every law? Or, just the ones that you don't like?

Congress has wasted 9 months that could have been spent actually negotiating a BUDGET over the House's quixotic quest to see if they could perhaps catch the Senate and then the President napping in an attempt to kill Obamacare.

If Congress had been working on what its job SHOULD be, we might not even need to be having these Debt Limit discussions now, or we'd at least know what the new ceiling needs to be.

Chris Gimenez

For lang and servitude and the author of this column, here are the predictions of the CBO regarding the future effectiveness of obamacare in insuring the uninsured.


There is a bright side to this black hole-the subsidy amounts are predicted to increase by 50%.

I'm sure lang and servitude will blame this on the Tea Party and the GOP for not stopping the madness of the left.

Kevin Lang

Nope, I'll put the blame squarely where it belongs. I belongs on everyone that has a role in legislative oversight. Everyone in a position to spot problems and failed to take specific corrective actions shares blame. Whether their banners depict donkeys, elephants, or "Don't Tread on Me", if their job description says they have oversight responsibilities and they did nothing to specifically address an issue, they are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else that shirked their fiduciary responsibilities.

You don't think that party affiliation should matter when it comes to taking blame or ownership of the country's problems, do you?

Chris Gimenez

Of course not, but since your president proclaimed early in the onset of his term when he told Eric Cantor during budget negotiations that "he won" there has been no legitimate attempt to work with the GOP or the Tea Party. Instead, it's been a runup in the nation's debt, the ballooning of entitlements, and the rush to implement a partisan healthcare takeover that is totally falling apart.

Anyone who believes this flawed plan can be salvaged is not feeling well. It sounds good to say everyone is responsible for not somehow making themselves relevant in what your president has done but it's not honest.

Kevin Lang

Well, it's not like the feeling hasn't been mutual. The GOP/Tea Party mantra since late 2008 has always been to make sure he's a one-term president (which didn't happen) and that he's the mose ineffective president, if not ever, at least since Carter.

How many of us would keep our jobs for very long if we refused to work with one or more of our co-workers? In the US Congress, it seems to not only be accepted, but actually be a job requirement.

I guess at this point, even if one or the other decided to sidle up and attempt to break bread, there'd be no trust anyway.

George Croix

"So, what you want is that after every election, congress and the president have to re-visit and re-approve every law? Or, just the ones that you don't like?
Congress has wasted 9 months that could have been spent actually negotiating a BUDGET over the House's quixotic quest to see if they could perhaps catch the Senate and then the President napping in an attempt to kill Obamacare.
If Congress had been working on what its job SHOULD be, we might not even need to be having these Debt Limit discussions now, or we'd at least know what the new ceiling needs to be."

Let's look at that with a bit of paraphrasing, to fit reality, not that other world in some alternate solar system:
"So, what YOU want is that after election, Executive friendly parts of Congress, and the President himself, get to re-visit and ignore all or parts of every law they don't like? Or just the ones that are politically helpful to ignore, and give cronies and friendly voters waivers and exceptions to them, including themselves?
The President wasted 58 months speach making in permanent campaign mode and demonizing, over and over and over, anyone who disagrees with him, when he could have been negotiating a BUDGET and other things beneficial to ALL the country, not just him and his Party, in his Quixotic quest to fundamentally change the United States of America. He's hoping the American people who are getting hurt by the ACA will not wake up the ones napping and rise up and kill Obamacare by virtue of not signing up for it, then voting out the people who 'deemed' it through. If the President had been working on what his job IS, to be the leader of ALL the country and work with ALL the Congress, we would not be having these debt limit discussions now, and asking for more trillions of dollars to run the national debt even higher, while already spending ALL TIME RECORD HIGH TAX REVENUES on greatly advanced 'entitlement' spending. They KNOW that raising the debt ceiling just to keep borrowing more money to put with the already much higher revenues from all the taxes and fees imposed by THEM is economically unsustainable, but, don't care, because they'll get their piece of the pie before handing a near DOUBLING of the first 232 years of national debt in just two 4 year terms in office over to the person on who's watch the economy will finally collapse, and THEY will be blamed for it."
That is the reality in this world.

George Croix

As this is two-fat-fingered, the idiots in DC in 'negotiations' have announced a Senate based draft deal that includes as one of the 'agreements' that applicants for ACA subsidies WILL have their income verified to be sure they qualify.
Well, whoopdedoo...
That is already in the ACA, the Law of the Land, as we are repeatedly reminded that it is.
Why, then, are we including this in a 'negotiation' for a shutdown/debt ceiling deal?
Well, because somebody IGNORED the part(s) of a law they don't find convenient to them, and in this case that inconvenience is because of the utter incompetence of the preparation for the ACA signup, despite a 600% increase in startup costs from original plan, and 3 1/2 years to get ready.
That's some very interesting negotiating. We'll give you back what we took away illegally in the first place, and call it a concession in the 'negotiations'.
More of that 'fundamental change'...

Kevin Lang

You're right. It sure seems like a ridiculous dialogue. Means and need testing should always be properly enforced in any kind of government subsidy program. Not just this one.

George Croix

Kevjlang, unlike some of the dismissed posters herein, you may actually be salvageable.

Kevin Lang

Gee, that almost sounds complimentary [beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]


Listen! Can I say something? Hear me now! I've been posting ON THIS FORUM, with all kinds of posters for years! Many of them are no longer posting! Mr. Lang has also been here a long time,....AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE WITNESSED HIM AGREEING WITH ANYBODY! ANYBODY!
I'm going mark it down in bold letters in my book of things to remember,...is what I'm going to do! "That's all I know!!!"

Kevin Lang

JBG, I disagree! I've even agreed with you on a couple of things. Of course, it doesn't happen often. I'm not a good "ditto" head. One thing I can concur with is that I don't agree with anyone on everything--and that includes me! I'm a firm believer that if you can't disagree with yourself, who can you disagree with :-)

Lars Faltskog

Seems like the debate today is "to what extent did the Republicans contribute to the ideology and passing of the ACA bill"?

It's simple GOV 101. Republicans have for a few years been in the minority as far as leadership is concerned. Only exception - the House. Whether one is a leader or a participant, he/she must adjust and adapt to remain within the system. He/she must also make some contribution, even if the individual is a scribe or goes out and gets the Cresent City begnets and donuts.

When and if it is time for the Republicans/Teapartiers (or whatever they want to be called) to be the majority rule, they can muster a coalition to "overturn" it. For now, it is the law!

What they need to do is be agents of efficiency...to figure out ways for the program to run smoothly with the least amount of "waste". Instead, they are whining like all their favorite marbles have been stolen by the President and his bully minions. SO, childish.

I agree with the poster who said, "let's stop paying them." No more salaries for any congress member, regardless of party. Then, they'll be forced to compromise, since they want their congressional perks too - along with their already established 6 figure-and-greater lawyer salaries.

Chris Gimenez

The real reason behind obamacare and why none of the costs are a concern for the president and the democrats.


Lars Faltskog

Well, it appears all over - and the drama shall take a brief respite, probably until January. A 74% disapproval rate for the Republicans/Tea Partiers (or whatever they want to be called).

Often, with the fickle electorate we have, folks forget soon and quite easily. However, I predict the Republican/TeaParty's treasonist actions will have repercussions. November 2013 might serve as an election year to be disastrous for Republicans/TeaParty. Actually, TeaParty will continue to wane.

However, Nov. 2013 election year might only be for some federal offices, not congressional. That's the only solace there probably is for the "GOPstopper" party.

_ _ _ Wendy Davis for Governor - - 2014 - - _ _ _ "A New Era for Texas"

Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 6:22 am on Thu, Oct 17, 2013:

Republicans have too contributed to ACA plan. There's actually one component they came up with that I and many others already do on our existing plan. That is, "personal responsibility incentives", where we routinely participate in questionnaires, write reports, and review on our good health practices. We get discounts on our premiums.

Also, the extension of dependent coverage. And, that has been done already for decades.

Chris Gimenez

The people responsible for this mess will never be held responsible because they don't have the courage to defend their indefensible mess. And all this comes from a president who lied to the nation too many times about how "accountable and transparent" his administration would be. Yep, Benghazi accountable, NSA accountable, IRS accountable, and HHS Secretary Sebellius accountable. Our Liar-in-Chief.


Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 8:46 am on Wed, Oct 16, 2013:

Catching up on some "recommended" reading. I do appreciate the links so I can be reviewed on the malarkey of yesteryear.

On that article link, bevoresident, I took notice of the part that indeed correctly said how one would think this Bush "health care tax break" blurb during this State of the Union address would not be taken seriously. Apparently is wasn't. If it were so conspicuous and from Shrub Bush's heart, he would have made it a common theme, with several references to the plan - including references to it when he was vacationing in Crawford TX at the "Western White House". I heard nothing more of this, just cricket chirps. You'd think with all the presidential advisors, press secretaries and the like - that more of this would have come to light.

Had he been serious, then perhaps there would have then been a bipartisan plan with the hand wringing debates that ensue. Like they say, "you can't look back". We got what we got now. Let's think of it like the national railroads. I'm sure folks back then were hand over fist in angst over the federal government running rail lines to nationalize the RAILROADS for the 1st time.

From ushistory.org:
"Although the first railroads were successful, attempts to finance new ones originally failed as opposition was mounted by turnpike operators, canal companies, stagecoach companies and those who drove wagons. Opposition was mounted, in many cases, by tavern owners and innkeepers whose businesses were threatened. Sometimes opposition turned to violence. Religious leaders decried trains as sacriligious. But the economic benefits of the railroad soon won over the skeptics."

Chris Gimenez

The only way obama got this obamination passed as law is because they controlled the Senate and House. Hussein wouldn't know bipartisanship if it sat on his lap and called him Daddy.

George Croix

Very true.
From Day 1, rather than try to get things done with 'bipartisanship', the role of a President of all the people, when we have one of those, this President has demanded to get things done 'by partisanship'.
The difference, while subtle to the ear, is monumental in actual practice.

Lars Faltskog

Well, bevoresident -
Aren't the Presidents generally thought of as either cantankerous or at least high on the stubborn side? History class makes me recall "give 'em Hell, Harry" (Truman), "tricky Dick" Nixon, "read my lips, No New Taxes" Bush #1, Teddy Roosevelt "It takes more than that to kill a moose."

Obama is in good company -


Most presidents are disagreeable and high-strung.

Chris Gimenez

It can't be fixed. The "glitches" and "kinks" are anything but and like everything else we've learned since Hussein was elected to office-he and his administration will lie early, often, and without compunction. They use our tax dollars like toilet paper and would have us believe all we have to do to solve any problem is give our federal government an endless supply of money and time, aka-the liberal cure for everything.


George Croix

Increased to full time health insurance for some while reducing others to part time work.
Lowered premiums for some offset by greatly increased premiums for others, or dropped from their own plans and forced into the ACA.
Deductibles raised to higher than savings from lowered premiums, where such exists.
A ruse of an insurance overhaul needed to provide for 30 million uninsured people, and now the estimated number of uninsured AFTER the ACA, by the same estimators, IF it worked as advertised, would still be 30 million.
Buy a pig in a poke, and you then have to open the poke, to find out what's in it...

Chris Gimenez

It was never about insuring the uninsured, it was about taking control and being able to make personal decisions become government decisions and have all the tax dollars and power that comes with that. Hussein could care less about the uninsured. Meanwhile, back at the ranch the reality of fewer full-time jobs, more part-time jobs and an increasing number of no jobs is not even on Hussein's radar. He has bigger fish to fry making sure citizens are fined, forced to buy health insurance, paying higher premiums because of obamacare, forced divulgence of highly personal information to "navigators" who weren't background checked and on and on and on. It reminds of the Titanic going down-only this shipwreck is going to take a lot more passengers with it.


George Croix

Yes, I know.
That's why I called the excuse for doing this ACA mess a 'ruse'.
My wife has been trying to get me to be less blunt, or else I'd have called the President's 'signature achievement' the bald-faced, two-faced, in our face, making people face the higher costs and lower work hours, and face the fact they can't always keep their Doctor or insurance, the outright LIE that it was, and still is.
But, I won't say that.
I'll just stick with 'ruse'... [wink]

Lars Faltskog

'buffo'? [lol]

Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 5:53 pm on Mon, Oct 21, 2013:

Well, bvredisent -
On a subliminal level, I have more and more been able to ponder over the strangeness of Hussein - that is, the name itself. And, your references to the "Hussein" name only has helped me think even more of it.

I also wonder about his legal 1st name - Barack. That's very odd too. I've never heard of an American with that name. Don't know if I could trust a guy with those names, even if he's a regular Republican guy. Couple the strange names this President has along with what he's been doing to our country - imposing health plans on those who may not want it. Yes, I'm thinking more and more.

Why did so many people vote for him - and twice?? My only conclusion is that it's the way our bless-ed country is turning, and so much of it not for the better. That's for sure. No, I don't think I'll ever be able to trust anyone with the name "Hussain". Don't know either what I'd do if I had to work with one, or if a guy with the name "Hussain" would ever end up moving in next door to me. What has our country become??

Chris Gimenez

servitude1, the answer to your own question is evident. "Why did so many people vote for him - and twice?? " This country has a populace that is comprised of extremely low information voters. They get their candidate impressions from sound bites, comedy shows, liberal teachers and college professors, and from the candidates themselves who promise them they are entitled to be taken care of from cradle to grave. When virtually every segment of the non-taxpaying citizenry is being promised just exactly the entitlement they need or want and without regard to whether they are legitimately receiving it, then it becomes a recipe for being elected and re-elected.

obamacare is the perfect example. One lying promise after another about how it would be the best thing since sliced bread and yet it has become exposed as just another mega-boondoggle that your president doesn't have the courage or integrity to admit is a complete failure.

George Croix

As a mechanism to HELP people, all of them, get health care without higher costs, the ACA is a collosal hoax.
As a mechanism to wreck the U.S. economy, to sublimate capiltalism and make as many people as possible as dependent as possible on government, it's a work of genius.
- The IRS is now saying, now, after the ACA has passed, and the re-election of Obama is past, that a typical family will pay $20,000/year by 2016 for health care!! That will effectively wipe out middle class status, rather than boost it, for most of them in it now, and the ones wanting to be.
- Full time 40hr/week jobs are being reduced to 29.5 hour jobs, or just eliminated, all over the country in increasing numbers, as a direct result of the onerous effects of the ACA on businesses. That is catasgtrophic to a family depending on a full paycheck, especially when Administration policies are the very, very UN-jiob friendly. It forces them to accept more 'government help'. What good is full time health care but part time paychecks, if ANY paycheck?
- The law requires an expansion of wealth redistribution on a massive scale, and people who actually work for a living will now have to pay not only their own rapidly increasing thanks to this law health care costs, but the rapidly rising costs for millions more people, too, including ANYONE with ANY condition that precluded such before, even if they caused their own problems. That also includes 26 year old adults now classified as 'children'. Another code for dependency.
- The law increases cost to small businesses by as much as 200 to 400%. Small businesses are the jobs generators in the country, pre-Obama. Fewer jobs, more government dependency. Small businesses donate to GOP candidates by about a 3 to 1 ratio, too, so hurting them in the pocketbook reduces donations to Democrat political enemies.
- Fellow citizens of differing viewpoints opposed to Obamacare or other Admin. policies now referred to routinely by Administration hacks, and the President, as 'terrorists', 'extremists', and 'jihadists', all for wanting the Constitution followed, and to have the government spend money wisely, not profusely. It's Alinsky 101 - divide, defame, denounce, divert, distract often enough, and even lies will become truth to the easily manipulated. The easily manipulated, are easily made dependent, and thus subjugated.
- The ACA makes the IRS ALL POWERFUL. This organization proven to have purposely used it's power to harrass and intimidate political opposites of the Administration, something the President called a 'phony scandal', something illegal ever since Nixon used them for it, has access now to ALL of your personal info on your health and your wealth. It's the ultimate 'legalized identity theft', and the people getting and using this info are IMMUNE from any legal recourse by citizens when used wrongly. 16,000 poorly trained and poorply vetted, if at all, 'navigators' now can see how much money you have, and all your other financial information.
- An absolutely disastrous breakout of the ACA, of the 'signature achievement' by a President so self-absorbed and arrogant and narcissistic that he SEEKS to punish ANYONE disagreeing with him OR HURTING HIS AGENDA, yet not a SINGLE person on his team gets any blame for it? He blames NONE of his people, fires or demotes or punishes NO ONE, but instead implies it's the House's fault for not giving him enough money to spend to get ready? Despite getting, and spending, 600%, so far, more than he asked for?
More of that divert, distract, defame Alinsky stuff, because THE ACA IS WORKING EXACTLY LIKE OBAMA WANTS IT TO.
It's wrecking us.
It's working as planned.
That's how I see it.
That makes me one of the President's 'jihadist' opponents...

Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 8:17 am on Tue, Oct 22, 2013:

Wow, that's a quick turn-around. The law has barely been implemented, folks are still trying to navigate through the internets to sign on. Yet, you've deemed it a failure. Good thing folks didn't throw the towel in, in regard to the national railroad networks a couple of centuries ago.

Adam Cartwright wouldn't have had a better way to get to San Francisco...would have still had to ride his old faithful horse. Or, is this an [offtopic] sentiment?

Maybe we can wait for the day for a regular white leader to come back to guide us into returning to the good old days. [wink]

George Croix

"WHITE HOUSE OPENS DOOR TO OBAMACARE DELAY - As the federal government teetered on the brink of shutdown at the end of last month, the White House and Senate Democrats flatly refused a Republican emergency spending bill that would have kept the government open but delayed ObamaCare’s requirement that individuals purchase health insurance by March 31 or face a fine. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded to a GOP counteroffer by saying Republicans had “lost their minds.” But after an epic failure of a launch for the new health insurance entitlement and with the partial shutdown over, “delay” suddenly isn’t a dirty word anymore. With many of those subject to the fine unable to sign up due to manifold botches in the enrollment process, Democrats are warming up to the idea.
[A new ABC/WaPo poll finds 54 percent of respondents believe the problems plaguing ObamaCare’s Web site reflect a larger problem with President Obama’s signature entitlement program.]
Delay tactics - After President Obama owned up to the fact that the main Web site for enrollment is not working as it should, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked if the administration is looking for flexibility in applying the mandate. Carney indicated that A DELAY WAS NOT JUST POSSIBLE, BUT THAT IT MAY ALREADY BE ALLOWED BY THE LAW (emphasis mine, as is the note that what's allowed in this law hasn't deterred Team Obama from ignoring parts of it before, thus the irony of caring one way or another now...). “The law is clear that if you do not have access to affordable health insurance then you will not be asked to pay a penalty because you haven’t purchased affordable health insurance.” It would stand to reason that if the president claims the power to delay the fines for large employers by a year, as he already did, he could claim the power to pardon individuals."
Well, now, how 'bout them apples...looks like it takes a monumental embarrassment about a highly visible and costly repudiation of how well government can provide ideological driven, massive economy shaking, 'signature achievements' to get to the same point that POTUS' opposition was at a month ago.
NOW, perhaps a public retraction to his opponents, versus the public excoriation, is in order for POTUS/ claim that 'they always say things won't work, but, they always do."
It's actually Bush's fault...

Lars Faltskog

I have an inquiry regarding the website for enrollment of ACA. I'm certainly no "webmaster", but can someone explain why there cannot be two (2) functioning websites for folks to sign up? Or perhaps 4 or 5? Different websites for each region?

For example: a website for the Northeast, another for the Southwest, Mid Plains, South Central, et cetera. All boundries drawn by map. You would sign up in the South Central while your northeastern Aunt Esther signs up at a different website at her residence in Schenectady. That way, the whole nation wouldn't be going on one single website to "crash" the system.

Kevin Lang

There probably are multiple front-end servers. They may even have at least some of the back-end replicated.

Overall, from a system loading standpoint, I doubt that HHS was dealing with load variables that were outside the realm of what companies like Amazon, Google, IBM, and many others haven't dealt with and resolved countless times.

My guess is that it was dealt some combination of the following factors:

Lowest Bidder
Inexperienced Bidder
Poor testing of Front-end to validate load capacity and load balancing
Poor testing of middle-ware to validate efficiency of back-end transactions
Poor testing of end-to-end to ensure that throughput capability matched expectations
Poor configuration of load-balancing such that excess users would time-out before getting a web session
Invalid assumptions of how similar things work in Production versus Test. Usually in test, you're the only application running. Production, especially if you run distributed transactions, you find that the OTHER systems you query actually have others to serve than YOU.
Probably a few other factors that I'm not thinking of right off the top of my head.

Overall, a lot of the bugaboos are things they probably could have and should have anticipated and prepared for. For some, it could be that the shutdown furloughed some of the analysts that might have figured out the root causes quickly.

That said, even Amazon and others still have some glitches, such as Black Friday and Cyber Monday, but they generally have the background, skills, and other resources available to resolve the issues pretty quickly.

George Croix

"Federal health officials went ahead with the Oct. 1 launch of Obamacare's online health insurance marketplace despite a failed test days before, the Washington Post reported Monday.
Government officials and contractors ran a test to see whether the web portal could handle traffic from tens of thousands of users simultaneously, and the site crashed after a simulation in which only a few hundred tried to log on at the same time, according to the Post.
Sources close to the project told the Post that key testing of the website didn't take place until the week before the official launch. As late as Sept. 26, the sources said, no test had been carried out to determine whether a user could complete the enrollment process from beginning to end.'
So, then, WHY would the go ahead be given to intitiate that which was sure to fail?
Why, because not doing so would have given the 'enemies' of the White House, as the President has referred to them ("We're going to punish our enemies and reward our friends" - BHO) a current, factual talking point to match, exactly, what they predicted would happen.
Better to screw the citizens some more and make them pay more money to fix something broken after already 600% overrun on costs for just the broken website than to admit your opponents are right and you are wrong.

Kevin Lang

"Sources close to the project" could just as easily be people like you and me. Or, it could be people that share the same lunchroom as the people that were working on that part of the project. I'm not going to say that what they're saying is 100% factual, nor am I going to say it's 100% false. I will say that in years in the software business, I have seen people think that a failed test is inconsequential--the problem was in the test script or in the test execution or the test was unrealistic. It also could have been a test of a component that is inconsequential to what was rolled out. It could be as reported, or it could be 180 degrees away.

Regardless of how it came to pass, I would seriously hope that the project staff has learned many important lessons about the rules of software development. #1 of those rules, for me, at least, is that NO ONE other than the developer should EVER see a failed test. #2 is that if an 11th hour test uncovers a defect, that means that all of the levels of testing that happened before did not do as they were intended.

Unlike hardware testing, there is no reason at all why ANY level of software testing not be allowed to be destructive testing. You may not want to have a diesel pump motor melt during testing. However, if a piece of software "melts" during testing, you can just open it back up in an editor, fix the bug, and re-run the test. When I write a piece of code, I never let it go anywhere if I haven't had a chance to try to break it, or if I know a way to break it.

So, if there were tests failing in late September, the real failure was months prior when the developers were supposed to be doing unit testing.

George Croix

The real problem with the ACA website?
The Real Problem.
I'm just a simple old country boy. A program to me is what I buy at the Aggie football games.
So, I'll try to keep it on a level I can get wrapped around more easily.
I plan, hope, wish, and drool over new truck brochures and websites, and finally order one. The goal is to get it in time for a cross country vacation trip. When it comes in, I go to pick it up, and when I turn the key, it runs for 13 seconds, then shuts down, and won't restart.
Not looking good.
Try once again, and it runs this time.
For 30 seconds.
Dealer has mechanic take a look, and comes out to say he's got it running, for a while, at intervals, and that there's a problem he thinks is a factory defect that will take time to troubleshoot, but I can try to drive it if I insist.
I insist.
I put the family in, and off we go, and about eleventeen miles this side of Nowhere, it quits again. Down for the count.
At this point, it matters not one whit that the REAL cause of the truck's problem was incorrect assembly of the muffler bearings or whatever several weeks ago.
The fact remains that MY problem, as the final shot caller, is I was too dam_ hardheaded to get the thing properly checked out, or put off the vacation until I got another truck, and now my family is at some inconvenience at best, and risk at worst.
Truck. ACA.
Add intransigence, and they are six of one...etc...

We don't need excuses for 600 million bucks. We need results.
UNLESS, as I posited elsewhere, all is working exactly as planned, by not working.
I would never intentionally harm my family.
Can't speak for anyone else...

Lars Faltskog

Response to kevjlang posted at 7:06 pm on Tue, Oct 22, 2013,
Response to gecroix posted at 10:49 on Tue, Oct 22, 2013:

Well, I'm almost sorry I asked about the technological aspect. [lol] Reading Kevin's (which mainly cememnts my appreciation that there's folks that can think analytically and be webmasters)...Aside from that, I have to join gecroix's side for a rare moment and simply say that a massive chunk of the consumers in this sign-up plan are obviously NOT computer savy. Moreover, many would be the type who might have a rare access to a computer for a few minutes to do this task.

To run into a "glitch" that can't be resolved in one sitting, I'm afraid, will chase off quite a few potential enrollees. I think the best thing at this point is to have massive telephone operators a la Jerry Lewis marathon style. This would give the nation an opportunity to sign on folks in an old fashioned manner.

Along with that, there ought to be "ACA Care Night Outs" where community members, volunteers, and paid part-time employees sign on folks in community centers, churches, reception halls and such. There's still a substatantial # of folks who simply can't bear with contendending amongst the computer aspects of things.

Kevin Lang

There very well may be some legitimate excuses for not having the site working correctly on day 1. If the sites were merely overloaded, that would have been easy enough to address (those are legitimate uses of the old adage to throw hardware at it). Those extra servers could even be leased if the need isn't expected to be long-term. However, I can't think of legitimate excuses for the applications being unusable on day 1, other than inadequate hardware causing transaction timeouts.

Late requirements, compressed delivery schedules, inexperienced or overstressed developer, etc. are not excuses. These are scenarios that all good, and even most not-so-good program managers are at least aware of. Good designers and developers should be willing and able to stand up after assessing the scope and state what can and cannot be accomplished within the schedule.

I've been involved with many software projects over the years. If you tied all of my appendages behind by back and cut off all my fingers, I could still count on one hand the number of projects I've worked on where the schedule, scope, specifications, and resources were all perfectly reasonable or even generous. I have never started an implementation on or ahead of schedule, with a full and robust set of requirements, with a relaxed development schedule, and with enough quality developers on the team. You don't skip any steps, but you might get a little smarter with how you perform or combine them, and sometimes you put in a little extra time to bring things at least close to schedule, perhaps even adding a few more people to fill strategic needs (documentation, ad hoc testing, chasing requirements, etc.). Sometimes you peel back some scope. However, you never deliver anything where you know that testing was inadequate or results were not promising. Crossing your fingers and jumping on a cruise ship are not valid options on cutover day.

George Croix

This morning the Secretary of HHS says if only she'd had FIVE YEARS instead of just 3 1/2, and of course more money, a LOT more than the 600 MILLION already in the toilet, all would be well with the ACA website.
Yes, more time and money has worked out so well with government intrusion into education, too. What can you do, for now, but laugh at such blatant taking of the citizensof this country for all fools by yet another Administration hack.
BUT, should be an interesting meeting between the President and insurance company reps at the WH.
Obama promised big, big money for them in the form of millions of new 'customers' FORCED by his 'signature achievement' to buy their product, under penalty of tax if they don't, in return for their support of the ACA, which, at the time of this two-faced deal (Obama spent months DEMONIZING the insurance industry, then kissed their backsides anyway for their help...in back rooms, of course...)was just about to be tossed on the ash heap with Hillarycare.
Now, with even former supporters of it calling this mess a complete disaster, and unless the books are badly cooked, there's no way in heck to get 7 million people enrolled, the vast majority of whom HAVE to be young people or this latest government Ponzi scheme all falls apart, further apart, by year's end, those insurance execs are going to have one simple point to make: "Show us the money"!!
Our President, adept at answering such a querry, will do as he's done for the last 4 1/2 years - he'll show them YOUR money, and try to give them enough of it to get them to quiet down.
For a while.
Divert. Distract. Delay. Divide. Deceipt.

Kevin Lang

She seems to have forgotten one of the major rules of projects. Throwing more time at a project has very little to do with its chances of success. More than likely, if 3.5 years isn't enough time, 5 years probably won't either.

I would think that 3.5 years would be enough time to build a robust website. I would suggest that perhaps project management didn't do a good job of insulating the project team from the "dump or delay" Obamacare political chatter.

George Croix

How would you insulate anyone with a functioning brain stem and a TV from the 3 1/2 years of polling results that show a majority of citizens, by several points, did not then, do not now, and are unlikley to support in the future, the ACA in it's current 27,000 pages form, warts and...more warts...and all?
Really, in the realm of plausible excuses, that one has more holes than Henry's water bucket.
Liza ain't buying it...
Wonder if the project team was listening to the chatter when POTUS was handing out waivers and giving delays to everyone BUT individuals. You'd think such self-admission of systemic flaws in the program itself by it's #1 Cheerleader, coupled with a narcissistic NEED by him to make something take place on time lest political advantage be lost, even though warned it would FAIL, would play more heavily than a sideshow from, well, the side.
Not much of a project team if they can't do their job because of news reports that someone doesn't like what they are doing.
Now, if we consider the real world Planet Earth fact that it IS demoralizing and will effect work to have someone in charge, especially the Man in charge, repeatedly IGNORE your warnings that all is NOT well, and demand success, when you KNOW you can't give it, then THAT would qualify as an excuse for less than stellar rollout.
But, who's fault would that be?
C'mon. You can say it.
Hint: It doesn't star with an R or a C or even a T...[beam][beam]

George Croix

Secretary of HHS Sebelius stated that the President didn't know about any problems with the ACA website until October 1, rollout day.
Looks like we have three options here:
Option A - The President has surrounded himself with toadies and instructed them to consider his feelings as Job 1 before doing any real work and responsibility stuff.
Option B - Sebelius is falling on her sword for the President because she knows she isn't going to get fired because it would mean Obamacare failings and inconsistencies becoming the focus of confirmation hearings for her successor.
Option C- An Administration focus group determined that enough American citizens really are stupid and will believe even the most blatant lie if they voted for the liar.
Pick all that apply.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.