Will technology accomplish what the GOP could not?

David Vitter’s political quest to embarrass Congress on health care

Under the president’s health-care law, Congress and much of its staff are supposed to lose their old health plans and instead buy coverage on the “exchanges” set up for individual Americans. But Vitter says that they are slated to get improper help, including money from the federal government, and that special loopholes allow some to keep their old coverage.

Vitter wants that to stop.

And so he has embarked on an improbable mission: to persuade other legislators to take valued benefits away from the very staffers who write their speeches, guide their votes, answer their mail and remind them of the birthdays of spouses and the names of Rotary Club presidents back home.

But for those forced to find a new policy on the exchanges, one thing won’t change. The federal government will still pay part of the cost — just as it does for other federal employees, and just as many other large employers do for their employees.

This is what Vitter sought to get rid of first. He wanted to eliminate that employer contribution, calling it a special “exemption” not available to regular people (a view that ignores the exceptional circumstances under which Congress forced its employees onto the exchanges in the first place).
Click to expand...

If you like your existing plan you can keep you plan, Unless the Republicans decided that you cannot keep your plan, Obama LIED AGAIN !
 
peter grimes said:
One of the key differences between this Obamacare Exchange rollout and other apparently similar examples is that it had to go live nationwide available to everyone all at once. If they had done a phased roll-out, like a closed beta followed by open beta followed by official release this wouldn't have happened. But that's not feasible for a public service with a congressionally set deadline.
Click to expand...

They should've made it feasible then. Romneycare was implemented in phases in Massachusetts. This should've been done in phases targeting sub groups as a beta.
 
Didn't know that about the RomneyCare.

Either way, I'm not defending the program as it stands, but I think it's unreasonable to demand that it should be 100% error free on day 1. Then again, it's easy for me to arm-chair analyse.
 
Nope, 100% perfect on day 1 or it's a complete and utter disaster that is equivalent to the Challenger, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and slavery combined.
 
Well, since website design is so easy, you can see why all the insurance agencies have created little apps that show you how you can shop around in their products and how that Obamacare applies.
 
peter grimes said:
I think it's unreasonable to demand that it should be 100% error free on day 1.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I need to bold this part for you, Antilogic, and hobbsyoyo.

“We still have to build the payment systems to make payments to issuers in January,” Chao clarified.

I can understand how they thought that was so unessential that it could be built on the fly.
 
Exactly, so the Obamacare disaster is on par with the worst oppression in American history, right?
 
Hyperbole doesn't make for an appealing or even convincing counter argument against people pointing out legitimate faults of the program thus far.

Seriously, the payment system hasn't even been built yet?!? You have to have actually made a payment for any policy you might have signed up for to have any meaning. Given that the payment system hasn't been built yet, has anyone actually signed up for Obamacare?
 
Uh huh, so then what is your point?

Moreover -

Do you think that I applaud the botched website rollout?
 
DinoDoc said:
Uhm, what?

CMS Official: 60 to 70% of Obamacare Architecture Not Yet Built

“We still have to build the payment systems to make payments to issuers in January,” Chao clarified.
Click to expand...

That link was very interesting. I wonder if you checked the comments?


civvver said:
They should've made it feasible then. Romneycare was implemented in phases in Massachusetts. This should've been done in phases targeting sub groups as a beta.
Click to expand...
Indeed, as I mentioned before. But I wonder how much about the roll-out was set in stone by the way the legislation was written as well as constrained by republican / opposition challenges to the law.

DinoDoc said:
Perhaps I need to bold this part for you, Antilogic, and hobbsyoyo.

“We still have to build the payment systems to make payments to issuers in January,” Chao clarified.

I can understand how they thought that was so unessential that it could be built on the fly.
Click to expand...
"The administration had only from April to start building. The SCOTUS sent the whole thing into limbo. There'd be no point in creating a site if the SCOTUS tossed the Act out as unconstitutional. Not to mention the HHS had very little money to make the website, no money had been allocated to HHS to craft it. So they had to scape their own money together because Republicans in congress nixed any in the budget for the site. They spend between 70 and 150 million and to put that in perspective, Google Plus cost 500 million to make, AND the site has to communicate with the IRS, Social Security department, verify you are who you say you are, and shop through a multitude of insurance plans. So it's not like making a BLOG."

I don't know if this is true, as it's just a comment on an article on a blog.... but food for thought and research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GoodEnoughForMe
Should the US be a Dictatorship?
8 9 10
Replies
195
Views
8K
EnglishEdward
EnglishEdward
Zardnaar
Red Zoning Disasters
Replies
3
Views
259
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
danjuno
Former President Biden Has "Aggressive" Cancer
Replies
13
Views
581
Cloud_Strife
Cloud_Strife
Birdjaguar
Fighting Back
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
3K
Valka D'Ur
Valka D'Ur
Zardnaar
Could the GoP/Trump Win Under A Proportional System?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Back
Top Bottom