pacino wrote:well, i actually went on the website at the time, did you?

i also see the actual numbers. 1.5 million were processed. that's below their expectations...and??? it's not some giant failure. millions have been covered in one fashion or another since 2009, with more receiving rebates, discriminatory practices being weeded out, and companies have been required to become more efficient. the horror, please save me from the ACA!

The whole thing just emphasizes how tone-deaf conservatives can be. Rather than expending their energies on Americans receiving substandard care -- and tens of millions receiving no care at all -- while spending far more than any other industrialized country, they can't make a big enough stink over a friggin' website not functioning flawlessly.

JFLNYC wrote:More on the healthcare debacle.

When Americans got sick, they had to wait longer than people in most of the other countries to get help. Fewer than half were able to get same-day or next-day appointments with a doctor or nurse; one in four had to wait six days or longer. (Only Canada fared worse on both counts.) But Americans got quicker access to specialists than adults in all but two other countries.

Obviously the research organization never heard of CVS (Nurse Practioners) or Urgent Care (MD's). People can get walk-in access to both in a manner of minutes, let alone days. Perhaps the question was really access to your doctor of choice.

JFLNYC wrote:

pacino wrote:well, i actually went on the website at the time, did you?

i also see the actual numbers. 1.5 million were processed. that's below their expectations...and??? it's not some giant failure. millions have been covered in one fashion or another since 2009, with more receiving rebates, discriminatory practices being weeded out, and companies have been required to become more efficient. the horror, please save me from the ACA!

The whole thing just emphasizes how tone-deaf conservatives can be. Rather than expending their energies on Americans receiving substandard care -- and tens of millions receiving no care at all -- while spending far more than any other industrialized country, they can't make a big enough stink over a friggin' website not functioning flawlessly.

I think they're more pissed that the ACA was passed based on misleading information. Conservatives acknowledge that the website will get fixed.

Werthless wrote:

Romney would hold a slight lead on President Obama if the 2012 election were replayed today, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The poll of registered voters shows Romney at 49 percent and Obama at 45 percent in the rematch, a mirror image of Romney’s four-point (51-47) popular-vote loss in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... eld-today/

My response would have been "why are you wasting my time asking such a meaningless question".

cshort wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

pacino wrote:well, i actually went on the website at the time, did you?

i also see the actual numbers. 1.5 million were processed. that's below their expectations...and??? it's not some giant failure. millions have been covered in one fashion or another since 2009, with more receiving rebates, discriminatory practices being weeded out, and companies have been required to become more efficient. the horror, please save me from the ACA!

The whole thing just emphasizes how tone-deaf conservatives can be. Rather than expending their energies on Americans receiving substandard care -- and tens of millions receiving no care at all -- while spending far more than any other industrialized country, they can't make a big enough stink over a friggin' website not functioning flawlessly.

I think they're more pissed that the ACA was passed based on misleading information. Conservatives acknowledge that the website will get fixed.

You mean there really weren't WMD's? At least we have the death panels.

JFLNYC wrote:

cshort wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

pacino wrote:well, i actually went on the website at the time, did you?

i also see the actual numbers. 1.5 million were processed. that's below their expectations...and??? it's not some giant failure. millions have been covered in one fashion or another since 2009, with more receiving rebates, discriminatory practices being weeded out, and companies have been required to become more efficient. the horror, please save me from the ACA!

The whole thing just emphasizes how tone-deaf conservatives can be. Rather than expending their energies on Americans receiving substandard care -- and tens of millions receiving no care at all -- while spending far more than any other industrialized country, they can't make a big enough stink over a friggin' website not functioning flawlessly.

I think they're more pissed that the ACA was passed based on misleading information. Conservatives acknowledge that the website will get fixed.

You mean there really weren't WMD's? At least we have the death panels.

Really good analogy there. Based on flawed intelligence, the British also believed they were there, Hussein (who used them previously) stupidly didn't deny it, and there was bipartisan belief in their existence. In hindsight a huge, terrible mistake. The ACA, while a noble idea, was passed on a partisan vote using legislative sleight-of-hand, with facts knowingly kept from the legislature and public.

You really need to stop using Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin as proxies for conservatives. Most conservatives have.

The point is that there never has been, nor will there ever be, a political debate without more than its share of misleading information ("If we lower taxes on the rich, the job creators will create jobs!" "We have the best healthcare system in the world!"). If the conservatives (who, by the way, have made a science out of misleading information) spend their days being upset by there being misleading information in political debates, they're going to spend their entire days being upset.

And, by the way, I don't listen to anything Hannity or Palin say. Ever.

Toronto City Council just stripped Rob Ford of his Tim Horton's punch card.

Official: Between 60% And 70% Of Obamacare Website Still Not Built

At a congressional hearing Tuesday, Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Henry Chao said while the front end of the site — the part most people actually see, where you can compare plans and apply for enrollment — was finished for the Oct. 1 rollout, the backend is still a long way from completion.

“The back office systems, the accounting systems, the payment systems, they still need to be [built],” Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Henry Chao said.

Hmm

jerseyhoya wrote:Official: Between 60% And 70% Of Obamacare Website Still Not Built

At a congressional hearing Tuesday, Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Henry Chao said while the front end of the site — the part most people actually see, where you can compare plans and apply for enrollment — was finished for the Oct. 1 rollout, the backend is still a long way from completion.

“The back office systems, the accounting systems, the payment systems, they still need to be [built],” Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Henry Chao said.

Hmm

I usually just read the conversations and don't get involved, and for the most part I think you understand "politics" better than anyone on here. Given that, I shouldn't be surprised that you seem to be rooting for the failure of the ACA altogether. I don't understand that mindset. Shouldn't you root for what would be best for the country? Now that it's the law, you'd think that the law working as it should would equate to a good thing for the country.

If they spent maybe 12-15 of the 46 votes on the law between 2010-Current day maybe they would have ironed out these issues. Instead we are left with a not so great law that everyone knew needed work from the start... And we're shocked it isn't perfect.

Politics are not sports, we only have one horse in this game, and that's the country, not any political party. You didn't see dems rooting for response failures during Katrina, or a loss in Iraq, or a blow up of part D. Grow up.

I think what bothers me is that conservatives seem to want it to fail. regardless of how you see the legislation, it is designed to give insurance to tons of people who don't currently have it, while also forcing companies to not discriminate against preexisting conditions, etc. This is something everyone should want to succeed. But if it makes democrats or Obama look good, then conservatives would just as soon keep people without their healthcare. There's no other reason for the lies they have said about Obama's intentions, the website, and a host of other issues surrounding ACA. They loved this plan when they came up with it decades ago. Now it's socialism and the end of our great nation.

Wow, I was writing my post when you posted that.

I agree. Stop rooting for it to fail and help make it work. Obama has bent over backwards to work with both parties, to his own detriment most of the time.

Monkeyboy wrote:Wow, I was writing my post when you posted that.

I agree. Stop rooting for it to fail and help make it work. Obama has bent over backwards to work with both parties, to his own detriment most of the time.

It's just infuriating, if this is the direction the parties are going to take we are going to rapidly deteriorate as a country. It is not a productive mindset to hold in politics. You fight about it before it's law. Once it's law you make it work.

Kman223 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Official: Between 60% And 70% Of Obamacare Website Still Not Built

At a congressional hearing Tuesday, Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Henry Chao said while the front end of the site — the part most people actually see, where you can compare plans and apply for enrollment — was finished for the Oct. 1 rollout, the backend is still a long way from completion.

“The back office systems, the accounting systems, the payment systems, they still need to be [built],” Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Henry Chao said.

Hmm

I usually just read the conversations and don't get involved, and for the most part I think you understand "politics" better than anyone on here. Given that, I shouldn't be surprised that you seem to be rooting for the failure of the ACA altogether. I don't understand that mindset. Shouldn't you root for what would be best for the country? Now that it's the law, you'd think that the law working as it should would equate to a good thing for the country.

If they spent maybe 12-15 of the 46 votes on the law between 2010-Current day maybe they would have ironed out these issues. Instead we are left with a not so great law that everyone knew needed work from the start... And we're shocked it isn't perfect.

Politics are not sports, we only have one horse in this game, and that's the country, not any political party. You didn't see dems rooting for response failures during Katrina, or a loss in Iraq, or a blow up of part D. Grow up.

A fast death leading to a major overhaul is better than a cycle of increased costs and subsidies and costs and subsidies.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Kman223 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Official: Between 60% And 70% Of Obamacare Website Still Not Built

At a congressional hearing Tuesday, Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Henry Chao said while the front end of the site — the part most people actually see, where you can compare plans and apply for enrollment — was finished for the Oct. 1 rollout, the backend is still a long way from completion.

“The back office systems, the accounting systems, the payment systems, they still need to be [built],” Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Henry Chao said.

Hmm

I usually just read the conversations and don't get involved, and for the most part I think you understand "politics" better than anyone on here. Given that, I shouldn't be surprised that you seem to be rooting for the failure of the ACA altogether. I don't understand that mindset. Shouldn't you root for what would be best for the country? Now that it's the law, you'd think that the law working as it should would equate to a good thing for the country.

If they spent maybe 12-15 of the 46 votes on the law between 2010-Current day maybe they would have ironed out these issues. Instead we are left with a not so great law that everyone knew needed work from the start... And we're shocked it isn't perfect.

Politics are not sports, we only have one horse in this game, and that's the country, not any political party. You didn't see dems rooting for response failures during Katrina, or a loss in Iraq, or a blow up of part D. Grow up.

A fast death leading to a major overhaul is better than a cycle of increased costs and subsidies and costs and subsidies.

What, exactly, do you see as a major overhaul? Single-payer? That's what most reasonable people wanted to begin with, who balked at that? If not that, then what? The former system was a train wreck, something had to change. So if your answer is to go back to how it was you're just being ignorant.

I think what's more likely to happen, which is sort of what's playing out, are minor changes to the law. See: voting more than 0 times on improving the law and 46 times to undercut/abolish it.

I, and any other AMERICAN, would be open to any ideas that improve our healthcare system. Haven't heard many from those so against this law.

jerseyhoya wrote:A fast death leading to a major overhaul is better than a cycle of increased costs and subsidies and costs and subsidies.

What overhaul would the GOP House ever allow to happen? We've spent two decades on health reform, during which time the GOP has gone from embracing this type of plan to eschewing damn near anything.

You can say things like that all you want, but it's not reality-based IMO.

It won't completely implode - that would be bad - but if things continue go poorly allowing major changes to be politically feasible, that would be good. We had the discussion here.

So you are hoping for it to fail so that your party can finally act in good faith and try to work out something helpful?

Do you also have the Brooklyn Bridge for sale? I mean, how big of suckers do you think we are? Just because Obama falls for it about a billion times doesn't mean we will.

Bucky wrote:[img]Weirdly%20clipped%20Dick%20Cheney%20quote%20and%20an%20angry,%20unattributed%20
quote%20from%20the%20permanently%20disappointed%20JOAN%20WALSH,%20who%20somehow%20managed%20
to%20complete%20a%20sentence%20without%20alleging%20the%20conservative%20she%20was%20trashing%20was%20a%20racist[img]

"When I came out from under the anesthetic after the transplant, I was euphoric," Cheney, who underwent the life-saving procedure last year, told Larry King in an interview slated to air Thursday on Ora TV. "I’d been given the gift of additional lives, additional years of life. For the family of the donor, they’d just been [through] some terrible tragedy, they’d lost a family member."

"The way I think of it from a psychological standpoint is that it’s my new heart, not someone else’s old heart," Cheney continued. "And I always thank the donor, generically thank donors, for the gift that I’ve been given, but I don’t spend time wondering who had it, what they’d done, what kind of person."

Aren't organ donor laws extremely strict in protecting anonymity? Seems pretty counterproductive to do anything beyond acknowledging the tragedy the family suffered and expressing thanks to donors.