mozartpc27 wrote:Hey, Democrat buddies, Werthless and jerseyhoya have the best of this conversation because there isn't enough lipstick for this pig. Obama has now admitted as much.

The website isn't the reason the ACA is in deep shit right now. It's in deep shit because of this:

President Obama said not wrote:You have an individual market that accounts for about 5 percent of the population. And our working assumption was -- my working assumption was that the majority of those folks would find better policies at lower cost or the same cost in the marketplaces and that there -- the universe of folks who potentially would not find a better deal in the marketplaces, the grandfather clause would work sufficiently for them. And it didn’t. And again, that’s on us, which is why we’re -- that’s on me.

Even the President has admitted his error, and it's nothing to do with the website - it's about fundamental assumptions underlying the law.

Bloomberg Businessweek wrote:Some Insurers Didn’t Give Customers Enough Warning Before Ending Plans

In California, Anthem said a “computer glitch” was responsible for not giving customers adequate notice.

dajafi wrote:Elections largely are decided based upon values/ideology, but administrations are successful, or not, based upon judgment and managerial acumen

td11 wrote:grr, yes 90%+ white and 67%+ male.

those numbers are a result of who is benefited by libertarian ideology-- males and whites. women and minorities can't really afford to be libertarians.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:then there are the Republicans in the former Bush administration, equating a healthcare rollout with the response to Hurricane Katrina. jesus christ, it's hard to be reasonable when there is a level of outrage that vastly outweighs the actual event. You don't get to write off your response to a natural disaster (where people died and lives were ruined and changed forever) by equating it to a website screwup.

I think it's a pretty good comparison. It's a very public breakdown of the administration's ability to competently manage government on a vital issue that has also raised major questions about their trustworthiness.

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:then there are the Republicans in the former Bush administration, equating a healthcare rollout with the response to Hurricane Katrina. jesus christ, it's hard to be reasonable when there is a level of outrage that vastly outweighs the actual event. You don't get to write off your response to a natural disaster (where people died and lives were ruined and changed forever) by equating it to a website screwup.

I think it's a pretty good comparison. It's a very public breakdown of the administration's ability to competently manage government on a vital issue that has also raised major questions about their trustworthiness.

So healthcare.gov can be compared Katrina, but heathcare.gov cannot be compared to Sandy. Got it.

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:Elections largely are decided based upon values/ideology, but administrations are successful, or not, based upon judgment and managerial acumen

Well, that's one way administrations can be successful. Was Clinton particularly managerially astute? Or that old deficit-runner, Ronnie Reagan? Hoover had managerial acumen out the ass, etc, etc

Werthless wrote:If the President's response to Sandy had been terrible then it would be an apt comparison. But it wasn't, and so it didnt cause Obama's popularity to plummet.

You're can compare Sandy and ACA, it just doesnt make any sense.

Werthless wrote:If the President's response to Sandy had been terrible then it would be an apt comparison. But it wasn't, and so it didnt cause Obama's popularity to plummet.

You're can compare Sandy and ACA, it just doesnt make any sense.

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:If the President's response to Sandy had been terrible then it would be an apt comparison. But it wasn't, and so it didnt cause Obama's popularity to plummet.

You're can compare Sandy and ACA, it just doesnt make any sense.

i don't think he's talking about Obama

jerseyhoya wrote:Hurricane Katrina is widely regarded as the point where Bush's approval ratings crossed from mediocre to poor irrevocably. The administration's initial inadequate response to the storm was compounded with out of touch statements (Heckuva job, Brownie) and actions (flyover rather than putting feet on the ground).

Obama's approval ratings keep hitting new lows. His administration has proven woefully unprepared to enact a law that was the centerpiece of their first term agenda. Making matters worse, one of the main lines he used to sell the plan has been shown to be a lie, and for the first time a majority of Americans view him as untrustworthy. And now the promises made about how they're going to make things work by November 30th seem like they're going to fall short. It seems pretty plausible that the flawed Obamacare rollout will have the same lasting effects on people's judgment of Obama's competence and trustworthiness as Katrina did for Bush.

jerseyhoya wrote:. It seems pretty plausible that the flawed Obamacare rollout will have the same lasting effects on people's judgment of Obama's competence and trustworthiness as Katrina did for Bush.

JFLNYC wrote:There's now zero chance Obama will be re-elected.

phatj wrote:

td11 wrote:grr, yes 90%+ white and 67%+ male.

those numbers are a result of who is benefited by libertarian ideology-- males and whites. women and minorities can't really afford to be libertarians.

My mom is a libertarian. And has been since long before she became successful.