Werthless wrote:

traderdave wrote:Does the outside world really believe that some early website issues = ACA is a failure? Because that would really be idiotic.

A poorly working website may lead to an undesirable selection bias; only the really sick people are the ones that bother to sign up. That would be bad.

Or it may mean that only the healthy have the energy and stamina to complete the process. Or it may have no effect whatever whatever on the cross-section of those signing up.

td11 wrote:

traderdave wrote:Does the outside world really believe that some early website issues = ACA is a failure? Because that would really be idiotic.

the right in this very country believes it. NRO reporter jonathan strong actually tweeted this yesterday:

Jonathan Strong ‏@j_strong 21h
is Obamacare President Obama's Iraq War?

As far as analogies go, I've seen far worse. It would be more accurate to ask "Will Obamacare be President Obama's Iraq War?"

The lasting legacy of each President, more expensive than anticipated (maybe?), efforts to defund by the minority party, etc. It's way premature, but I guess that's the point of your comment.

JFLNYC wrote:

Werthless wrote:

traderdave wrote:Does the outside world really believe that some early website issues = ACA is a failure? Because that would really be idiotic.

A poorly working website may lead to an undesirable selection bias; only the really sick people are the ones that bother to sign up. That would be bad.

Or it may mean that only the healthy have the energy and stamina to complete the process. Or it may have no effect whatever whatever on the cross-section of those signing up.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:

traderdave wrote:Does the outside world really believe that some early website issues = ACA is a failure? Because that would really be idiotic.

the right in this very country believes it. NRO reporter jonathan strong actually tweeted this yesterday:

Jonathan Strong ‏@j_strong 21h
is Obamacare President Obama's Iraq War?

As far as analogies go, I've seen far worse. It would be more accurate to ask "Will Obamacare be President Obama's Iraq War?"

The lasting legacy of each President, more expensive than anticipated (maybe?), efforts to defund by the minority party, etc. It's way premature, but I guess that's the point of your comment.

no the point of my comment was what traderdave posted on the last page. i have no idea what kind of warped sense of whatever it takes to equate the iraq war with a law designed to provide healthcare for most americans, regardless of implementation issues in the first 3 weeks.

Werthless wrote:

traderdave wrote:Does the outside world really believe that some early website issues = ACA is a failure? Because that would really be idiotic.

A poorly working website may lead to an undesirable selection bias; only the really sick people are the ones that bother to sign up. That would be bad.

Werthless, I consider you to be one of the brightest, most well-informed people here but come on. You know damn well that if somebody needs insurance (sick or not) they are not going to try to sign in, have a problem and then say "Ahh, fuck it". They are going to go back later and try again and try again. If there is any kind of selection bias created, it will be from Republicans and other anti-Obama types who will not go the ACA route out of pure spite.

Look, it sucks that people are having problems signing up; I consider THAT to be an epic failure for this administration. But that does not mean the law is shit. It took three years for Henry Ford to open the first large-scale assembly line; imagine if he had abandoned it after only three weeks.

traderdave wrote:Does the outside world really believe that some early website issues = ACA is a failure? Because that would really be idiotic.

Heck, prior to all the shutdown ballyhoo, around 20% of Americans thought obamacare either got repealed by congress or the SC killed it dead.

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Werthless wrote:

traderdave wrote:Does the outside world really believe that some early website issues = ACA is a failure? Because that would really be idiotic.

A poorly working website may lead to an undesirable selection bias; only the really sick people are the ones that bother to sign up. That would be bad.

Or it may mean that only the healthy have the energy and stamina to complete the process. Or it may have no effect whatever whatever on the cross-section of those signing up.

Employer-sponsored health coverage is the principal source of coverage for most working-age people in the US. And the insured are already paying for the uninsured, and have been, in very inefficient fashion, for years.

Any "rate-like" impact of the currently uninsured on ACA rates, either positive or negative, will be fairly hard to measure.

traderdave wrote:

Werthless wrote:

traderdave wrote:Does the outside world really believe that some early website issues = ACA is a failure? Because that would really be idiotic.

A poorly working website may lead to an undesirable selection bias; only the really sick people are the ones that bother to sign up. That would be bad.

Werthless, I consider you to be one of the brightest, most well-informed people here but come on. You know damn well that if somebody needs insurance (sick or not) they are not going to try to sign in, have a problem and then say "Ahh, fuck it". They are going to go back later and try again and try again. If there is any kind of selection bias created, it will be from Republicans and other anti-Obama types who will not go the ACA route out of pure spite.

Look, it sucks that people are having problems signing up; I consider THAT to be an epic failure for this administration. But that does not mean the law is shit. It took three years for Henry Ford to open the first large-scale assembly line; imagine if he had abandoned it after only three weeks.

We shall see. If I were single and childless, I would be tempted to self-insure if the price was very high. How many people that affects, I cannot say. I'm interested to see the data once the signup period closes.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Werthless wrote:

traderdave wrote:Does the outside world really believe that some early website issues = ACA is a failure? Because that would really be idiotic.

A poorly working website may lead to an undesirable selection bias; only the really sick people are the ones that bother to sign up. That would be bad.

Or it may mean that only the healthy have the energy and stamina to complete the process. Or it may have no effect whatever whatever on the cross-section of those signing up.

Employer-sponsored health coverage is the principal source of coverage for most working-age people in the US. And the insured are already paying for the uninsured, and have been, in very inefficient fashion, for years.

Any "rate-like" impact of the currently uninsured on ACA rates, either positive or negative, will be fairly hard to measure.

phew, your 18 day hiatus had me worried doc

td11 wrote:phew, your 18 day hiatus had me worried doc

top-secret naval maneuvers have limited my internet access

JUST IN CASE ANYONE THOUGHT I WAS TO BLAME FOR ALL THIS HEALTHCARE.GOV DUMBASSERY

Not until you mentioned it.

Now that those who report the number are back to work, we know unemployment dropped, jobs numbers good:

he U.S. unemployment rate dropped 0.1 percentage point to 7.2% in September and a broader measure of unemployment fell to 13.6% from 13.7%, as more Americans were working last month.

In contrast to recent months, the drop in the main unemployment rate was almost totally for positive reasons. The number of people employed jumped by about 133,000, while the number of people who said they were unemployed dropped by 61,000.

imagine if the government sector didn't shed so many jobs; the unemployment rate would be damn near 6%

And if the level of people in the workforce was the same % as when the recession started, the rate would be 11.2%

you mean the recession jim demint started?

President Barack Obama didn't know of problems with the Affordable Care Act's website -- despite insurance companies' complaints and the site's crashing during a test run -- until after its now well-documented abysmal launch, the nation's health chief told CNN on Tuesday.

In an exclusive interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked when the President first learned about the considerable issues with the Obamacare website. Sebelius responded that it was in "the first couple of days" after the site went live October 1.

"But not before that?" Gupta followed up.

To which Sebelius replied, "No, sir."

The buck stops...somewhere over there.

Hoya, you are better at making arguments then that. Come on. Although his signature effort is ACA, not economic recovery, he should be able to trust that his execs are making good decisions including delaying or phasing releasing the launch. Per the quoted interview Sebelius did not do her part.

On a side note, and I am not sure the source, I heard/read that there were 55 different contractors involved in this effort. Aside from that, the software development was only started in Spring 2013.

Republicans have hurt their outlook in 2014

http://wapo.st/16uqF9c

thephan wrote:Hoya, you are better at making arguments then that. Come on. Although his signature effort is ACA, not economic recovery, he should be able to trust that his execs are making good decisions including delaying or phasing releasing the launch. Per the quoted interview Sebelius did not do her part.

On a side note, and I am not sure the source, I heard/read that there were 55 different contractors involved in this effort. Aside from that, the software development was only started in Spring 2013.

Yes, I agree, it's not surprising that the website has weaknesses. The administration deliberately withheld writing specs until after the election, and then delayed getting them to the contractors until this spring.

Clearly, it's the fault of the law's critics, and not the person who heads up the administration.

just call them on the phone

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:

traderdave wrote:Does the outside world really believe that some early website issues = ACA is a failure? Because that would really be idiotic.

the right in this very country believes it. NRO reporter jonathan strong actually tweeted this yesterday:

Jonathan Strong ‏@j_strong 21h
is Obamacare President Obama's Iraq War?

As far as analogies go, I've seen far worse. It would be more accurate to ask "Will Obamacare be President Obama's Iraq War?"

The lasting legacy of each President, more expensive than anticipated (maybe?), efforts to defund by the minority party, etc. It's way premature, but I guess that's the point of your comment.

no the point of my comment was what traderdave posted on the last page. i have no idea what kind of warped sense of whatever it takes to equate the iraq war with a law designed to provide healthcare for most americans, regardless of implementation issues in the first 3 weeks.

But the administration is employing a tech surge! A surge, for crying out loud... their words, not mine.