Obama "addresses" ACA website

[Korriken]

This makes my head hurt to ponder how people fall for this.

Ok, so Obama begins by bringing his human prop of the day out, lets her spew into the microphone. Then he begins talking, says he's going to address the issues with the website, then goes directly into trying to sell it again, reads a couple of letters, bashes the Republicans, tries again to sell it, then runs off.

so..... yeah. I'm still waiting on Obama to address the problems with the website.

[Fim]

At 10/21/13 12:01 PM, Korriken wrote:

Thanks for a wholly informative, verifiable and non-biased political ramble.

[Korriken]

At 10/21/13 12:36 PM, Fim wrote:

Thanks for a wholly informative, verifiable and non-biased political ramble.

You're welcome.

[CaveStoryGrounds]

At 10/21/13 12:01 PM, Korriken wrote: so..... yeah. I'm still waiting on Obama to address the problems with the website.

Well, this isn't Obama; but a showing of why no one should be bitching about some piddly ass lag.

[24901miles]

Does anyone have a link to the full speech? Google results are only showing me short clips.

Also, looks like they just needed to buy more bandwidth. I'm sure some kind of hacking controversy will pop up though.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

oh you mean that useless website thats costing millions of dollars to actually work? The AHA i a waste of legislation and should be done away with.

[Korriken]

At 10/21/13 11:24 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

Well, this isn't Obama; but a showing of why no one should be bitching about some piddly ass lag.

There's a difference between "some piddly ass lag" and the entire system being completely dysfunctional. Especially given the amount of time that they had to make it work, I would say it is indeed unacceptable.

If lag was an issue, it would take a while but you could get it done. Problem is, the entire system is screwed up and it's impossible for most to get anywhere.

Of course, IT experts say it's the way the site was designed that makes it so messed up. The influx of people was just another part of a bigger problem. I just wonder how secure the site really is...

[Korriken]

At 10/21/13 11:36 PM, 24901miles wrote: Does anyone have a link to the full speech? Google results are only showing me short clips.

Also, looks like they just needed to buy more bandwidth. I'm sure some kind of hacking controversy will pop up though.

Here, it even includes the human prop he brought out.

Bandwidth is only part of the problem. the other half is how the site is designed, which is, well, horrible.

[Warforger]

So let me get this straight, ACA is a total failure because its website is having maintenance issues with all the traffic, which is coming from millions of people nationwide. Like seriously that's the best argument you guys can come up with? At the very least try harder to give yourselves a reason to hate it other than it's made by Obama (and even then not totally accurate since it was a Republican idea originally). Either you're not even trying or there's nothing to complain about in Obamacare.

[Light]

Good lord you people love to bitch and bitch about any perceived flaws in plans and laws proposed by your political opponents.

[Korriken]

At 10/22/13 12:21 AM, Warforger wrote: So let me get this straight, ACA is a total failure because its website is having maintenance issues with all the traffic, which is coming from millions of people nationwide.

Depends on what you consider failure.

the 1st failure is that for the first few years, the "penalty" is cheaper than actually getting insurance, I would say it's actually deters people from getting a plan. Also, the fact that people can remain on their parents' plans until they're 26 is another failure. Why? because if they're riding on their parents' plan, they're not buying into the system.

the 2nd failure is, as of now, the people getting insurance are the sick and elderly, because their mounting bills will be a lot cheaper than paying out of pocket. The young and healthy (over 26 anyway) will just pay the much cheaper penalty and go about their lives.

The 3rd failure is the 40% tax on the "excess" of the "Cadillac plans". This sets an artificial roof on the insurance company. Those plans are high dollar, and the insurance companies bring in quite a bit on them.

The 4th failure is that by time the penalty is stiff enough that the plan actually IS cheap enough to get people to sign up, the insurance rats will be astronomically high because of the sick and elderly draining the system while the young and healthy pay small penalties. As the insurance prices rise, the penalty may very well remain lower than the cost of insurance.

The thing, I'm not sure, it could just be gross incompetence on part of the bill writers, but I can't help but think this is by design in order to force a single payer system once the system comes crashing down. And if it is, that is damned clever. But may be me being overly analytical. I'm just surprised I haven't heard anyone from the GOP mention the possibility.

[Entice]

If you wanted to discuss the ACA you could have just done it instead of slapping "thanks Obama" onto technical problems with the website which he has very little control over

Of course he defended it in the speech. Did you think he'd just throw his hands up and say "it's over, the ACA is a failure" just because they're having some issues getting the website up?

The lines to get your license renewed are terrible, we should shut down the DMV!

[Korriken]

At 10/22/13 12:41 AM, Shibe wrote:

The lines to get your license renewed are terrible, we should shut down the DMV!

I've never spent more than 20 minutes in the DMV. then again, I get there before it opens.

[Korriken]

*head scratch*

this is.... MSNBC.... Bashing Obamacare?

What the hell interdimensional portal did I fall into in my sleep and how to I get back to Earth from here?!

[Camarohusky]

At 10/22/13 12:35 AM, Korriken wrote: the 1st failure is that for the first few years, the "penalty" is cheaper than actually getting insurance, I would say it's actually deters people from getting a plan.

It's meant to lessen the shock for those without insurance. Instead of forcing them to go from zero to $1000 they get a light beginning that will slowly ratchet up as we get used to the law.

Also, the fact that people can remain on their parents' plans until they're 26 is another failure. Why? because if they're riding on their parents' plan, they're not buying into the system.

Yeah, the 20 something won't be paying it. They're still being bought into the system though. It's just that their parents are paying.

the 2nd failure is, as of now, the people getting insurance are the sick and elderly, because their mounting bills will be a lot cheaper than paying out of pocket. The young and healthy (over 26 anyway) will just pay the much cheaper penalty and go about their lives.

And they will still have no insurance and get no break from the bills, but the penalty will help lessen the cost on us who do pay insurance by having a pot of money specifically meant to cover these freeloaders.

The 3rd failure is the 40% tax on the "excess" of the "Cadillac plans". This sets an artificial roof on the insurance company. Those plans are high dollar, and the insurance companies bring in quite a bit on them.

I haven't heard enough about this to really comment on it.

The 4th failure is that by time the penalty is stiff enough that the plan actually IS cheap enough to get people to sign up, the insurance rats will be astronomically high because of the sick and elderly draining the system while the young and healthy pay small penalties. As the insurance prices rise, the penalty may very well remain lower than the cost of insurance.

You're timeline don't line up. The rates are ALREADY astronomical because of this. Obamacare is meant to help out by having peple pay in their entire lives instead of just before they need it.

The thing, I'm not sure, it could just be gross incompetence on part of the bill writers, but I can't help but think this is by design in order to force a single payer system once the system comes crashing down. And if it is, that is damned clever. But may be me being overly analytical. I'm just surprised I haven't heard anyone from the GOP mention the possibility.

The GOP has gotten burned SEVERELY by constantly railing against Obamacare without actually doing anything. They are probably trying to let the shutdown fiasco blow over before they start spewing their hot air again. Also, claiming that a system is built poorly in order to make it fail isn't exactly a good claim for the conservatives seeing as that is a strong tactic they constantly use. The last thing they want to do is out their strongest tactic.

[Feoric]

At 10/22/13 12:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The 3rd failure is the 40% tax on the "excess" of the "Cadillac plans". This sets an artificial roof on the insurance company. Those plans are high dollar, and the insurance companies bring in quite a bit on them.

I haven't heard enough about this to really comment on it.

It's a big issue for unions, which is why it's hilarious that Korriken of all people keeps bringing it up.

[Dr-Worm]

I don't think a single website in the history of the Internet has launched without some technical issues. The U.S. government is made up of people just like any other organization and they're not immune to this. I don't see what the big deal is. Waiting a while to get insurance is better than instantly having nothing.

Also, the site is having these issues in the first place because so many people are trying to use it. Clearly Americans feel quite differently about the ACA than Republicans like to claim. Honestly all these petty complaints about the website just seem like the whining of sore losers desperate to take some parting shots at the health care overhaul they failed to stop.

[Proteas]

At 10/22/13 01:30 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Also, the site is having these issues in the first place because so many people are trying to use it. Clearly Americans feel quite differently about the ACA than Republicans like to claim.

And clearly the U.S. Government didn't take the time in two years prior to this program being rolled out to deal with the kinks that are now so evident, and I think that's pretty self evident.

Honestly all these petty complaints about the website just seem like the whining of sore losers desperate to take some parting shots at the health care overhaul they failed to stop.

Scroll up and click Koriken's link from MSNBC, and say that again. This isn't simply "sore losers" taking pot shots at the government, you've got people on both sides taking shots. If members of your own party think you've screwed up, you're doing something wrong.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/22/13 02:01 PM, Proteas wrote: And clearly the U.S. Government didn't take the time in two years prior to this program being rolled out to deal with the kinks that are now so evident, and I think that's pretty self evident.

Sounds to me like they spent so much effort in trying to defend, sell, and legitimize the law that they overlooked much of the day to day of it all.

[Proteas]

At 10/22/13 03:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Sounds to me like they spent so much effort in trying to defend, sell, and legitimize the law that they overlooked much of the day to day of it all.

This comment wins to the topic. No more has to be said, you sir win 10 internets and a cookie.

[Korriken]

At 10/22/13 12:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

It's meant to lessen the shock for those without insurance. Instead of forcing them to go from zero to $1000 they get a light beginning that will slowly ratchet up as we get used to the law.

Maybe, but tell me, if I never go to the hospital, and don't plan on it, what reason do I have to spend more on an insurance policy than I do to just pay the penalty and go about my life? I see no reason to.

Yeah, the 20 something won't be paying it. They're still being bought into the system though. It's just that their parents are paying.

Maybe, we'll see.

And they will still have no insurance and get no break from the bills, but the penalty will help lessen the cost on us who do pay insurance by having a pot of money specifically meant to cover these freeloaders.

You really think the penalty money will be appropriated for that? It'll be just a matter of time before those funds are raided, err, "borrowed" and thrown into the general fund, just like Social Security.

I haven't heard enough about this to really comment on it.

Here you go.

You're timeline don't line up. The rates are ALREADY astronomical because of this. Obamacare is meant to help out by having peple pay in their entire lives instead of just before they need it.

"Your", not "You're". Sorry, pet peeve. The rates are high now. Give it a year or two. It'll be outrageous thanks to people not signing up, unless they need the benefits. The problem with legislation like Obamacare, is unless you make the penalties for not obeying very devastating, or at least strong enough to force people's hand, you can't legislate people to change their behavior. The Obamacare penalty will no more deter people from not signing up than a ban of drugs stops people from getting stoned.

The GOP has gotten burned SEVERELY by constantly railing against Obamacare without actually doing anything. They are probably trying to let the shutdown fiasco blow over before they start spewing their hot air again.

Also, claiming that a system is built poorly in order to make it fail isn't exactly a good claim for the conservatives seeing as that is a strong tactic they constantly use. The last thing they want to do is out their strongest tactic.

Given how many weak spots Obamacare has, I'm surprised they keep just trying to repeal it, than to try and sell it as a nightmare trainwreck. Then again, intelligence and wisdom are two very different things and most politicians are not wise at all.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/22/13 04:16 PM, Korriken wrote: Maybe, but tell me, if I never go to the hospital, and don't plan on it, what reason do I have to spend more on an insurance policy than I do to just pay the penalty and go about my life? I see no reason to.

That's a gamble you can make. If you're willing to bet your life savings (and any future income) on the likelihood of you not going to the hospital, then don't get insurance. However, if you don't want your financial future ruined on the possibility of illness or injury, you get insurance. The penalty means that in the case choose to forego insurance and you do get injured, at least your freeloading will be lessened.

Maybe, we'll see.

No. Not maybe. It's how it works. If the parents opt to keep the twenty something on their insurance, the parents pay for it.

You really think the penalty money will be appropriated for that? It'll be just a matter of time before those funds are raided, err, "borrowed" and thrown into the general fund, just like Social Security.

And that would be the ACA's fault how?

The rates are high now. Give it a year or two. It'll be outrageous thanks to people not signing up, unless they need the benefits.

How so?

The problem with legislation like Obamacare, is unless you make the penalties for not obeying very devastating, or at least strong enough to force people's hand, you can't legislate people to change their behavior. The Obamacare penalty will no more deter people from not signing up than a ban of drugs stops people from getting stoned.

The penalty won't be just 90 some dollars forever. The goal is to make the penalty equivalent to or more expensive than a low end insurance plan.

Given how many weak spots Obamacare has, I'm surprised they keep just trying to repeal it, than to try and sell it as a nightmare trainwreck. Then again, intelligence and wisdom are two very different things and most politicians are not wise at all.

They know that it won't work that way. It will only take 10 million or so people who get on it and entrench their lives in it to make the ACA a nearly immovable object. It's not going to be very hard, even with the problems, to get that many on board in a few years. And the people may (and likely will) end up liking the policy, problems and all.

[Korriken]

At 10/22/13 05:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

That's a gamble you can make. If you're willing to bet your life savings (and any future income) on the likelihood of you not going to the hospital, then don't get insurance. However, if you don't want your financial future ruined on the possibility of illness or injury, you get insurance. The penalty means that in the case choose to forego insurance and you do get injured, at least your freeloading will be lessened.

Perhaps, problem is, the fact that this is even a possibility is not good. People who have pre-existing conditions are flocking to the system, the insurance companies cannot charge them any more than a healthy person, and healthy people who don't already have insurance often don't plan on getting it.

No. Not maybe. It's how it works. If the parents opt to keep the twenty something on their insurance, the parents pay for it.

True, but how much more? probably not much more, and not as much as putting the person on their own plan.

The rates are high now. Give it a year or two. It'll be outrageous thanks to people not signing up, unless they need the benefits.

How so?

The sick are flocking to get insurance. The healthy are not. The sick will be pulling a lot of money from the system. The healthy will not be making up the difference. This may or may not change in the next year. Problem is, if the penalty is too low, then they won't see a reason to get the insurance.

The penalty won't be just 90 some dollars forever. The goal is to make the penalty equivalent to or more expensive than a low end insurance plan.

They know that it won't work that way. It will only take 10 million or so people who get on it and entrench their lives in it to make the ACA a nearly immovable object. It's not going to be very hard, even with the problems, to get that many on board in a few years.

That depends. People who are leftist idealogues really won't matter. They'll support Obamacare because a Democrat's name is on the bill. Right wing idealogues will demonize it no matter what. We'll have to see what the people who can think for themselves think about it.

And the people may (and likely will) end up liking the policy, problems and all.

If it actually brought down health costs across the board, I would be all for it. Problem is, I don't see that happening with the way it's set up.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

so it takes over a month and 600 MILLION tax dollars to get one website going? fucking pathetic Obeezy!

[Korriken]

At 10/22/13 01:28 PM, Feoric wrote:

It's a big issue for unions, which is why it's hilarious that Korriken of all people keeps bringing it up.

It's only hilarious for you.

To me, it's a problem. a punitive tax on health insurance that are deemed "excessive" for whatever reason in order to "bring down health care costs" seems ass backwards to me. This tax serves 1 purpose. to place an artificial roof on premiums and punish anyone who dares to rise above that roof.

yeah, laugh it up jackass. Just keep laughing.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/22/13 09:21 PM, Korriken wrote: To me, it's a problem. a punitive tax on health insurance that are deemed "excessive" for whatever reason in order to "bring down health care costs" seems ass backwards to me. This tax serves 1 purpose. to place an artificial roof on premiums and punish anyone who dares to rise above that roof.

I'd like to read this section of the law. Could you point me to it? No need to quote, just a citation will do.

[Feoric]

At 10/22/13 06:11 PM, Korriken wrote: The sick are flocking to get insurance. The healthy are not.

Yes what a crazy world we live in where healthy people as of this second remain healthy for the rest of their lives and never have any need for health insurance while the sick remain sick forever while we healthy people pick up the tab.

[leanlifter1]

At 10/22/13 11:27 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/22/13 06:11 PM, Korriken wrote: The sick are flocking to get insurance. The healthy are not.

Yes what a crazy world we live in where healthy people as of this second remain healthy for the rest of their lives and never have any need for health insurance while the sick remain sick forever while we healthy people pick up the tab.

The reality is that it's not nearly as cut and dry as you are inferring.

[Memorize]

At 10/22/13 11:27 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/22/13 06:11 PM, Korriken wrote: The sick are flocking to get insurance. The healthy are not.

Yes what a crazy world we live in where healthy people as of this second remain healthy for the rest of their lives and never have any need for health insurance while the sick remain sick forever while we healthy people pick up the tab.

Sounds like Conservative morality logic to me.

"That's immoral, so we'll force you what to do."

[Camarohusky]

At 10/23/13 10:30 AM, Memorize wrote: Sounds like Conservative morality logic to me.

"That's immoral, so we'll force you what to do."

You forgot the main key of conservative morality logic.

"That's immoral, and even though it has ZERO effect on me or anyone else, I will still tell you what to do as if it did."

Seeing as this has a great deal of effect on others, it becomes basic regulation.