Obama's Bet On Healthcare.gov Has Gone Bust

One day the government will learn the best road to tread when dealing with the American people is the facts and the truth, we can handle it. But for some reason they keep underestimating the wherewithal and resilience we have as a country, and continue to believe dishonesty is the best plan.

This whole debacle could have been avoided if only the truth would have been told. I for one respect a straight shooter, someone who tells it like is, regardless of how bad or good what I'm being told is. It leaves less room for conspiracy, scandal, and whatever else comes along with it. The idea of hiding things from the public, especially one of this magnitude and profound affect is just bad politics, a no win situation.

Now, as Americans sit and watch the reality of things given to them by their insurance providers the backlash begins, and changes to the law by executive order starts.

You know, perhaps if officials weren't so worried about elections and kickbacks, partisan bickering, finger pointing, blame games, he said she said, something would be done correctly. Instead, it seems it's paramount on the agenda and as we go forward the ships in mutiny.

Give it up already, do something together, compromise. Show the American people we actually have a working functional government that can get things done. Both parties are equally guilty of this but, I must say if the democrats would have listened to the republicans and vice versa and came together to hear the concerns of the public and amended or negotiated together the flaws of the law, things would possibly be better.

But until government realizes that truth and facts are respected, regardless of outcome, the road ahead will remain the same, bumpy and unknown. If there's any advice I could give to politicians it's this...

Trust the American people to make good choices. You don't have to do it for us. Tell it like it is, shoot straight from the hip. You may find out then that you become respected, and above politics, trusted.


Source

When President Obama repeatedly told Americans, "If you like your plan, you can keep it," he understood that it wasn't true. Health care reform is very disruptive. There simply was no way Obama could keep that promise.

But the president also knew that many Americans who discovered their policies were cancelled would find new ones that offered more comprehensive coverage for a lower price.

Their anger would melt away as soon as they saw their new options. Some Americans would have to pay more for worse coverage and they certainly would be angry, but that would only be a small subset of the individual health care market. It wouldn't be enough to seriously hurt him or Obamacare. That was the bet the president made.

reply to post by Daedal


I take your points and you make some good ones here. I'd like to add one that I saw put forth last night in a round table discussion of the ACA and it's aftermath in initial roll out.

Many are suggesting Obama has lied and is still lying. I'd like to suggest this may not be true. As astounding as it may seem to consider, it may be accurate.

Men with ego's which need their own transport, tend to surround themselves with sycophants and end up in a bubble of information more isolated and less attached to reality than most.

In Obama's case? I've come to honestly wonder here ...Is he THAT GOOD at lying, or is he doing the thing all good con-men and liars learn to master? Look honest, because you ARE being honest. That is ...If YOU don't know, for certain, what the truth is? Your misrepresentation will come off as sincere and genuine in ways very few could ever manage, given the scrutiny a President is subjected to on all levels.

It makes it worse, not better...if he's honestly misrepresenting vs. lying or fabricating. It means he may well be dangerous misinformed on other more important things as well.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree. This isn't just about the health insurance debacle, it was just a current example of how dysfunctional our government has become.

reply to post by Daedal


Obama was likely backstabbed by people who knew the extent of the problems with the website and didn't tell him, likely because of one of the main problems of people in power: other people don't like to bring them bad news. That's one reason most powerful people have their own "kitchen cabinet" of old friends, who can talk to them as equals.

And he didn't set up the ACA out of a bet or popularity contest. As he said yesterday, someone had to do it sometime and he did it. The problems and greed in the old health care system in the U.S. look ridiculous to much of the rest of the world, and Obama decided he'd have to carry the U.S. kicking and screaming into the international health care mainstream.

Obama was likely backstabbed

There is absolutely nothing that people will not make excuses for when it comes to obama. I shouldn't be surprised at this point, it's been going on for 5 years now, but damn I still find it amazing what a difference switching from a r to a d makes when it comes to politics.

Daedal
One day the government will learn the best road to tread when dealing with the American people is the facts and the truth, we can handle it. But for some reason they keep underestimating the wherewithal and resilience we have as a country, and continue to believe dishonesty is the best plan.

You know, perhaps if officials weren't so worried about elections and kickbacks, partisan bickering, finger pointing, blame games, he said she said, something would be done correctly. Instead, it seems it's paramount on the agenda and as we go forward the ships in mutiny.

The problem admittedly pointed out in OP is the fact that politicians could not get elected nor maintain office afterwards using the truth.

Accepting the truth and doing something about it is vitally needed with ACA and many other issues.

This is primarily the publics fault as it is loath to sacrifice any benefits, entitlements, programs, pork or projects personally benefitting them for the greater good.

Politicians are delivering what the public asks for and receiving votes in return. Its a sick symbiotic relationship that eventually will kill the host.

To get the truth a majority would have to want to save the host - right now they are feeding upon the host as vermin upon a corpse.

What happens when there is no more flesh to eat?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Obama is a consummate liar - pathological even, insofar as he cannot help but to utter falsehood after falshood as though in a torrent - a raging river of lies. Its not that he's addicted to lying - but rather he is seemingly compelled to lie by an unseen force. In a way he's driven to it in such a way that its beyond his control; truth, or any reasonable notion of it seems abhorrent to Obama. Such conditions serve as the earmarks of a pathology. Even basic "Psychology 101" students are aware of the behavior(s) being described here, and for these, and various other reasons, we know that it is indeed pathological, and one needn't be a psychiatrist to figure that out - its self evident!

The art of lying in this manner is also somewhat contagious - meaning that it spreads and infects those in the immediate area, i.e., members of his cabinet, and his staff - the one's who are closest to him are adversely affected by his incessant lying as well. Otherwise they wouldn't - in conscience - be able to serve him.

May I invent a phrase? "Begone with thee - Thou dost make liars of us all." And in a very real way many are saying just that with large numbers of the "faithful" now abandoning him 'post haste' before he can do any more damage to their political careers.

The question now would be - does the pathological aspect of his 'character cum personality' exonerate him from guilt? Is he - in the legal sense - non-culpable for his seemingly intentional practice of serial lying? Perhaps. Why? Because his entire life has been build-ed (by others) upon one lie after another; a constructed reality - a fabrication of a life foisted upon him by those very same "unseen forces" referred to above. In that sense Obama may be no guiltier thaN any other MKUltra victim we here on ATS may have read about. Even so - does that render him without fault - assuming, of course, that its true that he's a victim of the CIA's MKUltra program?

BTW.....There is much evidence that points to the possibility that such a thing did, in fact, occur.

Personally - My mental image of Obama has - from the very start - resembled that of the character in the novel "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus:" a novel written by Mary Shelley and made into a movie - Frankenstein having been played by Boris Karloff - who, as we all know, was an invention brought to life by an unseen force - in this case 'electrical' in nature. A truly monstrous being assembled out of the disparate parts of anonymous personages long deceased. I say this in all seriousness too - without so much as a hint of a smile

Yeah I believe the best way to judge a program is after a week of being in effect and being hacked by whiz kids running on Mountain Dew and Billionaire money.
Obviously this is the only way to guage success in the way Americans were robbed by Big Insurance.
Gee, I wish we could go back to families becoming homeless because someone got sick.
Now that's American.


What does psychology 101 say about being delusional ?

sealing
Yeah I believe the best way to judge a program is after a week of being in effect and being hacked by whiz kids running on Mountain Dew and Billionaire money.
Obviously this is the only way to guage success in the way Americans were robbed by Big Insurance.
Gee, I wish we could go back to families becoming homeless because someone got sick.
Now that's American.

Healthcare was accessible and affordable in the 1960's when growing up. Accessible and affordable meaning my parents of extremely modest means could cash pay for themselves and four children - what changed?

Insurance, pharmaceutical, medical/dental/hospital providers and government.

Insurance was/is protected by monopoly laws that would make robber barons of the 19th century jealous, anti-trust laws and open market competition does not apply. Those laws were passed by our duly elected politicians.

Big pharmaceutical companies same as insurance, just go online and compare costs either side of the border to see how badly they screw over the consumer - again hand in hand with your duly elected representative in congress.

Medical/dental/hospital providers inside the system set up by corporations and government have no incentive to provide upfront costs, negotiate with the consumer nor have effective cost control - first thing looked at is what is covered and its business practice to maximize billing to match.

Now basically leaving monopoly laws and anti-competition regulations in place with even greater enhancement for the very people who screwed healthcare up in the first place - we are led to believe that an additional layer of demonstrably expensive and incompetent government bureaucracy is somehow going to reduce costs and cover more people.

I think the fallacies in that belief are finally on the table.

The solutions to costly healthcare was and still is removal of laws the are anti-competitive and support the monopolistic way things are run now.

Think what if you and several hundred thousand could form your own network and negotiate costs - that's illegal right now.

How about being able to buy catastrophic coverage but have your preventative care at Wal-Mart prices - that's not legal.

How about caring Americans support medical care for those below a pre-determined poverty level but at competitive market pricing instead of the over-inflated rate allowed in monopoly system we have now. Make sense once monopoly system is broken. Just as there are state sponsored risk pools for bad drivers there can be risk pools for pre-existing conditions. Again breaking the monopolies would go a long ways in cost reduction.

If the anti-trust laws of the 19th century were vigorously applied to the healthcare industry as it exists today then its my firm belief truly affordable care would be available and in many cases would not require insurance at all which is good because in the end that's just another non-productive parasite taking money from care.

I say much of this is our own fault for getting and expecting co-pays for service that are ridiculous in a system where costs are billed at loan shark rates almost entirely due government complicity and interference in the market.

I wish people would address the problem from a different direction rather than just looking for "freebies" when I talk of this I am not talking of the system as its been last 30 plus years - I am talking one where the consumer has control and choice.

I remember when HMO's and such got popular and its been downhill even since.

A good friend of mine ran the numbers from the official site, and the ACA would actually be "cheaper" than his current insurance provided through his employer.

Wait, What?

Yep, his insurance costs $19,000 or so a year. Most of that, however, is picked up by his employer. The total cost under the ACA was lower. Now, that doesn't mean his actual monthly expenses would be lower, but the overall cost would be.

If that's the case for him (and I suspect many others if you do the digging) -- I predict many employers will soon be tinkering with the idea of dropping their employees.

EDIT: Golly, how DID Obama get elected? It doesn't seem like anyone I talk to or come across supported the guy.

reply to post by sealing

Yeah I believe the best way to judge a program is after a week of being in effect and being hacked by whiz kids running on Mountain Dew and Billionaire money.

Yeah, I guess you won't want to mention nearly two years and 93.7 million dollars that were available to get that website running.....

reply to post by sealing

Yeah I believe the best way to judge a program is after a week of being in effect and being hacked by whiz kids running on Mountain Dew and Billionaire money.

Almost three months before the botched launch of HealthCare.gov, a U.S. health official expressed frustration with a main contractor working on the website, fearing quality assurance issues could 'crash the plane at take-off,' according to government documents.

The documents were released by Republican investigators with the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee.

Two series of internal emails in July between officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), including HealthCare.gov project manager Henry Chao, describe struggles with contractors, staff shortages and software problems long before the federal healthcare website crashed on its October 1 launch and threw the roll out of Obamacare into political turmoil.

In a July 16 email sent ahead of a meeting with then-prime contractor CGI Federal, Chao describes the agency's low confidence level in the project work, from constant struggles with releases to changing delivery dates and poor quality assurance on software. 'I just need to feel more confident they are not going to crash the plane at take-off,' Chao says in the email, which was among several documents the Republican investigators released.

Source

Ummmm you were saying about "hackers" ?

reply to post by MystikMushroom

EDIT: Golly, how DID Obama get elected? It doesn't seem like anyone I talk to or come across supported the guy.

Haven't you heard the election was rigged? In all seriousness though, I remember the Conservative Party winning the 1992 election and I didn't come across one person who voted for them. These kind of anomalies certainly get you thinking.

Obama, like most other Presidents in my living memory certainly has all the traits of a sociopath. I think you have to be in order to continuously spin the lies that he has come out with since 2008.

butcherguy
reply to post by sealing

 

Yeah I believe the best way to judge a program is after a week of being in effect and being hacked by whiz kids running on Mountain Dew and Billionaire money.

Yeah, I guess you won't want to mention nearly two years and 93.7 million dollars that were available to get that website running.....

A little perspective here:

March 21st 2010 (Obamacare signed into law) to October 1 2013 (Obamacare website brought online) is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days. December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day. What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for the government to build a working webpage.

Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin - all while fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. And in that amount of time - this administration couldn't build a working webpage.

But let's give credit where credit is due. There is a government website that is is capable of handling large volumes of users.



American's are buying insurance.... in Guns and Ammo.