Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well we do have a judicial system in place where a Supreme Court is empowered to decide what is, and what is not, constitutional.I call it a "failure in judicial jurisprudence".
And that Supreme Court rendered a decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare .... it's constitutional, no matter what you want to personally call it. That's how our system works.
Regardless of the ruling, the law is dying on it's feet as we speak. You need to don your funeral attire, Faun this thing is giving up the ghost any time now. The death of this law will render this failure of judicial jurisprudence moot.
No, you don't know what I know.
This was not ready to go. You're in denial about how bad the problem is.
In any case, the point of this thread is that the president supposedly did not know that this was not ready to go.
No matter how much you try to deflect, it is beyond bizarre that he cared so little and was so disconnected from this most important program that he did not know that it was not ready.
Again, I wouldn't expect a president of the United States to be involved. Given his background is law, I would guess he knows little, if anything, about software development.
His background in law? How can he be a "constitutional scholar" but show such utter disdain for it? He can orchestrate devastating presidential campaigns, but he can't craft a sound law. Some "constitutional scholar" he is.
Well we do have a judicial system in place where a Supreme Court is empowered to decide what is, and what is not, constitutional.
And that Supreme Court rendered a decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare .... it's constitutional, no matter what you want to personally call it. That's how our system works.
Regardless of the ruling, the law is dying on it's feet as we speak. You need to don your funeral attire, Faun this thing is giving up the ghost any time now. The death of this law will render this failure of judicial jurisprudence moot.
The law is not dying, no matter how hard the right tries to kill it. Over 40 attempts in Congress to repeal it ... shutting down the government unless it was defunded ... and yet, ObamaCare is still rolling forward.
Of course I have such grounds. I'm reading what you're posting and it demonstrates a lack of understanding of how software is developed. Especially when there are hard deadlines which have to be met, software often gets released with known issues which get resolved after the system goes live. But the problems with the website are not as bad as tightie righties are screaming about since there are other methods available to sign up. But the right is doing what it does best -- whine incessantly about the left.
No, you don't know what I know.
This was not ready to go. You're in denial about how bad the problem is.
In any case, the point of this thread is that the president supposedly did not know that this was not ready to go.
No matter how much you try to deflect, it is beyond bizarre that he cared so little and was so disconnected from this most important program that he did not know that it was not ready.
Again, I wouldn't expect a president of the United States to be involved. Given his background is law, I would guess he knows little, if anything, about software development.
Again, I wouldn't expect a president of the United States to be involved. Given his background is law, I would guess he knows little, if anything, about software development.
His background in law? How can he be a "constitutional scholar" but show such utter disdain for it? He can orchestrate devastating presidential campaigns, but he can't craft a sound law. Some "constitutional scholar" he is.
You think your opinion about how Obama treats the Constitution means anything???
Here's a perfect example -- the U.S. Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare is constitutional regardless of what you think. So here's a care where Obama got it right.
what do you think he should have done?
is that a serious question?
A. First he should have set benchmarks and made sure they were being met. If they were not, he should have found out in time to have something done about it.
B. If he still failed to take timely action in the past year, then having been suitably apprised about how woefully unready the site was, he shouldn't have rolled it out. He should have called that a-team in to fix things first.
Having a site which only the most determined people will sign up on could be worse for the future of the aca than no one being able to sign up. The success of the aca depends on a substantial volume of healthy people signing up. Among the people dedicated enough to hang on and try as many times as it finally takes, the percentage of unhealthy people could be catastrophically high.
He has been fighting against public perception since 2009. After the passage of the aca he mounted a campaign to convince people they would like it once they saw what it could do for them. Public approval of the aca has been under 50% for a long time (forever?). A good public reception of this rollout was vital. And he whiffed.
you clearly know very little, if anything, about software development. Delays, glitches, going live with known problems, encountering unexpected issues; is commonplace. But what is truly absurd is asserting the president of the united states should have been the one "setting benchmarks" and monitoring them. He can take responsibility for it not starting up fully functional and on time since it's a product of his healthcare plan, but he should not have had anything to do with that site other than to delegate others to manage the development of it.
Thanks AmeliaObamacare is just the defining symbol of his presidency and Obama didn't bother to call anyone to ask them if the system was working properly before they unleashed it on us.
Yes, if he doesn't know the ACA is unconstitutional on many grounds, what can you expect. Denial is denial. The same brain that suppresses dissenting information to bypass "cognitive dissonance" is going to skew anything else that comes in or goes out.
both parties see that the other dismisses their points as invalid or lying.
they can't see they are doing the same from the other side's viewpoint.
If psychologists and political scientists aren't studying this dual phenomena, they should.
It is like living proof that our perceptions are indirectly influenced and co-determined by external perceptions of others or by the collective conscience, and we are limited in our ability to exercise free choice and free thought if we are "stuck" in this dual denial and projection going on. If we can forgive and get past it, it doesn't restrict our perception and decision making abilities. This really should be determined and addressed at the start.
It should be screened and resolved BEFORE making public policy, like other syndromes
similar: the bystander syndrome, the Stockholm syndrome, Munchausen syndrome.
It is some form of projection, where the person is unwilling to change it if (a) they would have to change other things related to it that are not convenient either (b) the other side is not changing their perception so they stay mutually stuck in the same trap
If you think ObamaCare is unconstitutional, you should push to have the U.S. Supreme Court consider that.
..... oh, wait .... they did!
No, you don't know what I know.
This was not ready to go. You're in denial about how bad the problem is.
In any case, the point of this thread is that the president supposedly did not know that this was not ready to go.
No matter how much you try to deflect, it is beyond bizarre that he cared so little and was so disconnected from this most important program that he did not know that it was not ready.
Again, I wouldn't expect a president of the United States to be involved. Given his background is law, I would guess he knows little, if anything, about software development.
His background in law? How can he be a "constitutional scholar" but show such utter disdain for it? He can orchestrate devastating presidential campaigns, but he can't craft a sound law. Some "constitutional scholar" he is.
1. You clearly know very little, if anything, about software development.
2. Delays, glitches, going live with known problems, encountering unexpected issues; is commonplace.
3. But what is truly absurd is asserting the President of the United States should have been the one "setting benchmarks" and monitoring them.
4. He can take responsibility for it not starting up fully functional and on time since it's a product of his healthcare plan, but he should not have had anything to do with that site other than to delegate others to manage the development of it.
1. And neither do you. I on the other hand have some experience in website application and coding. Since when does a website have 5,000 lines of code per page and crash when loaded with only 100 constant connections? Why would you use a Canadian company to code it for you in the first place? What the fuck were these people doing launching a site that wasn't even alpha or beta tested? The software coding is shot, the coding is shot, and that will take probably three to six months to fix at best.
2. I'm sorry, even Robert Gibbs said this was no glitch. ROBERT EFFING GIBBS.
3. It does have his name on it, actually. His signature piece of legislation if I'm not mistaken.
4. Stop making excuses. He may not have known about it, but he should have exercised a bit of forethought before proposing the law in the first place. He was gullible enough to be hoodwinked by his own HHS Secretary. He lied about the numbers, made excuses, and now hes hiring the government equivalent of Geek Squad to repair the website.
That's beyond stupid. If you knew anything about software development, you'd know there are times when code goes to production with insufficient testing in order to meet deadlines. It happens. It's neither the preferred path nor the desirable path -- but it happens. And almost always with bad results which get fixed after the system is live. But in no way would I expect a POTUS to be involved at any level of software development. My guess is he knows even less than you about software development.
As far as it being a Canadian company, the development was done by an American subsidiary which has done government work in the past as well.
No, you don't know what I know.
This was not ready to go. You're in denial about how bad the problem is.
In any case, the point of this thread is that the president supposedly did not know that this was not ready to go.
No matter how much you try to deflect, it is beyond bizarre that he cared so little and was so disconnected from this most important program that he did not know that it was not ready.
Again, I wouldn't expect a president of the United States to be involved. Given his background is law, I would guess he knows little, if anything, about software development.
The issue is not whether he knows about software development. When I say program in this context, I am not talking about code. I'm talking about the wider ACA.
The issue is that Obamacare just got shot in the foot and he didn't see it coming. He didn't ask and no one thought to mention it to him.
Incompetence of the highest order.
A priceless demonstration of why we shouldn't trust him when he asks us to hand the government more power over our lives.
Embarrassing and dangerous.
Isn't it about time for another Obama speech telling us out outraged he is about all the horrible people getting in the way of the wonderful things he's trying to do?
In related news:Again, I wouldn't expect a president of the United States to be involved. Given his background is law, I would guess he knows little, if anything, about software development.
The issue is not whether he knows about software development. When I say program in this context, I am not talking about code. I'm talking about the wider ACA.
The issue is that Obamacare just got shot in the foot and he didn't see it coming. He didn't ask and no one thought to mention it to him.
Incompetence of the highest order.
A priceless demonstration of why we shouldn't trust him when he asks us to hand the government more power over our lives.
Embarrassing and dangerous.
The ACA is doing fine.
By almost all estimates, except FOX Saudi propaganda, it's saving the government money.
The Affordable Care Act?s Lower-Than-Projected Premiums Will Save $190 Billion | Center for American Progress
Only 3 Years Old, the Affordable Care Act Is Already Having a Big Impact | Center for American Progress
And it does this by eliminating fraud, encouraging regular check ups and insuring that HMOs actually spend money on keeping people well.
I don't understand the big beef.
You folks are always screaming about saving money..
Isn't it about time for another Obama speech telling us how outraged he is about all the horrible people getting in the way of the wonderful things he's trying to do?
.
