The ACA/ Obamacare Website Fiasco Thread

surgicalcric said:
Then there is the POTUS himself exempting those who he wants to from the mandate cough...unions...cough and big business while the little guy gets the shaft. It just isnt right and too many people are seeing through his BS.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the one-year exemptions that were granted recently? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/

As for your assertion that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote...that's so ludicrous that I'm not even going to touch it.
 
Or this?
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/10/washingtons_obamacare_exemptio.html

But in a classic case of Washington protecting its own, the Obama administration announced an illegal administrative fix to this provision in order to take the financial sting out and largely undo it. This special rule, with no basis in the Obamacare statute itself, allows members of Congress to keep many of their staff members off the exchange entirely. And members of Congress and staff who do go on the exchange would get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy (about $5,000 for single workers/$10,000 for families) unavailable to all other Americans at the same income levels. This creates a special exemption from the normal Obamacare rules and costs for members of Congress and their staff.
Click to expand...

To reverse this Washington double standard, I've introduced legislation that would end this Obamacare exemption for Washington. It would reverse the illegal Obama administration rule by requiring all members of Congress and absolutely all their staff to purchase their health insurance on the Obamacare exchange without the help of special taxpayer-funded subsidies. It also would create the same rule for the president, vice president and all of their political appointees.

Requiring this is really important for two reasons. First, it's a matter of basic fairness. The first rule of American democracy should be that all laws that Washington imposes on America apply in exactly the same way to Washington. Second, there's a very practical dynamic. The sooner Washington eats its own cooking, the sooner it will start getting things right - on Obamacare and a lot more.
Click to expand...
 
I don't want to derail the thread, but it is all sort of related. The fact of the matter is that many times people on welfare get a better deal taking welfare rather than working due to the taxes assessed on wages and benefits. Many of those people simply will not vote for a change as they are better off economically accepting welfare and being a drain on the system, rather than working and contributing to society via tax payments. I am not saying that all on welfare have this attitude. They don't. But a great many do.

They shouldn't get to have all the benefits of welfare and continue to vote for those in office to ensure that working people continue to support their benefits. There has to be a trade off because the current system is not sustainable. In a few short years, as we have discussed elsewhere, we will be paying interest on our interest of our debt service.

Obamacare is doing the tango on the last straw, in addition to us giving away boatloads of money.

I will go one better that many won't like either, but often tough choices aren't the most desirable choices to get the desired outcome. If working persons benefits are taxed, welfare benefits should be taxed as well.
 
Freefalling said:
I'm just a geek who believes in technology and can't fathom the levels of incompetence necessary for such an epic failure.
Click to expand...


Apparently you forget the dozen years it took to upgrade the FBI system if your shocked by these events. You get what you pay for when you pay contractors to do the work. Free you know that criticism isn't about the contractors serving overseas. It about the governments over dependency on contractors to serve it's day to day operation that is the problem. You get what you pay for and not a nickel more when you hire people to complete work that have no ownership in.

When we migrated from GroupWise to Exchange email this year, at my job, I worked 60-70 hours a week and had 2 days off from work from mid June to the first weekend in August because me and another guy owned that migration and we made it work and are CEO, who use to work for 3M, said it was the smoothest IT implementation he has ever been through. Of course our implementation isn't comparable in size and scope but then again we didn't have staffs of people either.
 
Scotth said:
Apparently you forget the dozen years it took to upgrade the FBI system if your shocked by these events. You get what you pay for when you pay contractors to do the work. Free you know that criticism isn't about the contractors serving overseas. It about the governments over dependency on contractors to serve it's day to day operation that is the problem. You get what you pay for and not a nickel more when you hire people to complete work that have no ownership in.
Click to expand...

I haven't forgotten it or the UN debacle and could find other examples if I wanted. Of course, SAP had a role in those failures and I'm sure it exists in a gazillion places on the healthcare.gov site.

Here's why I'm taking them to task and why I'm pissed. This is national, it is a law, it is a requirement, and the people who shoved this down our throats have allowed this to happen. "Ah, we need a 100 million to do this. I meant 500 million. Perchance, could we have 600 million?"

Nonsense. I understand IT rollouts and the time involved. A cornerstone of this damn healthcare issue is this website, the ability for Americans to access it and for us to be all green and shit, paperless and earth friendly.

ALL of the debate, the cost, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and this damned website doesn't work, can't work, may never work, on top of the high probability that PII security is weak

I don't give tinker's damn about the FBI or the UN or the hotmamas.com upgrade or whatever, we have to stop accepting this "whatever" attitude when it comes to critical systems and their implementation. We expect failure I think. Hell, I wonder if we want things to fail because we're too goddamned stupid or lazy to use something that works. If it fails we can blame the other guy.

The planet, THE ENTIRE PLANET, is digital. There are goat-fuckers in remote places on this earth with cellphones and sat TV. If the industrialized nations of this earth can't figure out how to make websites and link data then we're the caveman equivalent of that guy who kept burning himself because fire was a mystery.

While my thoughts on contracting are known around here, I guess, it is quite simple: contractors fail because contracting officers fail, lawyers fail, and profit is king. There's a reason the military has Tasks, Conditions, and Standards PLUS the ability to enforce failures. A "lack of ownership" is an excuse, lawyers and companies won't do what's right and thin the herd when needed. Carrot and stick, cause and effect.
 
Mac_NZ said:
I don't see any reason you guys can't have a working universal access health system right now, you all pay enough in tax. I'm pretty sure the financial aid given to places like Pakistan and Egypt would do a hell of a lot to offset the costs.
Click to expand...

My uncle owns a tool and die company and has run it successfully most of his adult life. We got into a healthcare discussion a few years back and I had mentioned if we had a health care system like Canada we would have budget surplus in this country and everyone would have healthcare coverage. He countered that he didn't want to pay $40 for a case of beer like the Canadians has to (not so much a comment on actual prices as how the system was paid for). I came back with how much did his company pay for his and my aunts health insurance. He said $2000 per month. I followed up with how many cases of beer could he buy with that $2000?

Single payer works today and it works in this country. Go out and Google drug cost comparison between the VA and Medicare. The VA can negotiate drug cost and Medicare can't and because of that Medicare pay twice as much as the VA for the exact same drugs. The latest stats I read was Medicare pays $14 billion more for medicine then they would if they could negotiate the same prices as the VA.

I have said it once and I will say it again. The status quo in healthcare has gotten us a systems that cost twice as much as the next closest industrialized country. Healthcare cost our killing our government, our business community and our families period. It's not liberal or conservative it's just fact. The ACA isn't going to change those dynamics much if any at all. Change will happen because it has to happen.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
surgicalcric said:
Employer mandate...

What makes it ludicrous, your disagreement? Strong argument, based on that maybe I should reconsider my position... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's ludicrous because you're punishing someone for being poor or otherwise using assistance. Whether someone is a welfare cheat or if they're simply down on their luck, you want to take away a constitutionally-protected right. And what kind of welfare are we talking about? I received a Pell Grant this year, and the state of California waived my tuition fees because I got great grades. Between my EAS and the start of my GI bill benefits (a period of roughly four months) I was on unemployment. Should I not be able to vote? My Dad will be drawing Social Security and disability payments (non-VA). Should he not vote either? What about the approximately 50 million Americans currently covered by Medicare? Those are all forms of welfare and the people covered by them would be excluded from voting.

You know why welfare spending went up during the first four years of Obama's presidency? It could've had something to do with it coinciding with the recession, maybe. This notion that people on the dole are simply going to vote for the guy that gives them more stuff is pretty simplistic. You want to know an interesting thing that the 2010 census revealed? That white, rural women are the single greatest group of welfare recipients in the country (for the life of me I cannot find the data, but I've posted it here before). So that group voted mostly for Obama in the 2012 election, right? Nope. Check figure 1B http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/the-elephant-in-the-exit_b_2094354.html
 
Deathy, you are correct in that recipients of welfare went up during Obama's presidency because of the recession. But it was fattened up by Obama's stimulus package. I have attached a Link below, The Work vs. Welfare Tradeoff 2013, below. In that document, you will find the statement, "In 11 states, welfare pays more than the average pre-tax first year wage for a teacher. In 39 states it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the 3 most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer".

According to the authors, the value of welfare benefits has actually increased in 32 states and the District of Columbia since the first report in 1995.

In the most generous state, Hawaii, for example, state benefits provide the equivalent of $49,175 per year, up from $41,910 in 1995 (adjusted for inflation). To equal the value of those benefits, a Hawaiian would have to take a job paying (before taxes) $60,590, up from $55,001 in 1995.

Welfare was meant to be a temporary solution to a short term problem. It has become a way of life to some pretty smart people who know a good deal when they see it.


http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-trade
 
It may seem ludicrous now, but poor people didn't get to vote when our country was founded. Only rich people (i.e. landowners) did. Specifically, white male landowners. Only allowing landowners to vote makes some modicum of sense, because they tend to be more educated and more vested in the community. The poor people, the belief goes, are inherently transient, lack the sophistication to vote, are easily swayed by emotion, and will vote for those who give them the most freebies. This quote might sum up how some who hold this belief feel:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover. that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
Click to expand...

...and there might be some degree of truth to the above quote. Of course, there are also massive problems inherent in a system that only allows economic elites to vote.


These days, I'm totally good with every citizen getting to vote, as long as 1) only citizens get to vote, and 2) citizens only get to vote once per election.
 
Mara, I largely agree with your post, and philosophically don't want to take away a freedom. Practically speaking though, it needs to happen for the term that a person receives govt money. OK. Let welfare recipients keep their vote. But tax their benefits at a similar rate to those working at comparable wages. And tighten eligibility requirements. Also, make them stick to a prescribed budget based on family size, and adjusted for geographic location, and make budget counseling a requirement so they can learn how to handle their money wisely.

But since that won't happen, the welfare, interest, and healthcare portions will continue to grow. The biggest sections impacted would be defense and our woeful spending, at the Federal level, on education. The fact that welfare recipients earn more than a first year teacher in our country is disgraceful.

chart
 
Deathy McDeath said:
My Dad will be drawing Social Security and disability payments (non-VA). Should he not vote either? What about the approximately 50 million Americans currently covered by Medicare? Those are all forms of welfare and the people covered by them would be excluded from voting.
Click to expand...
I disagree with part of this statement. People on Social Security and Medicare A have paid into the system over the years in via the deduction from their paychecks. People that utilize Medicare B pay a monthly premium for it. People on Medicare D purchase their prescription plan via a private insurance company and also pay a monthly premium. So while these programs may earn the moniker "welfare" I disagree it should be referred to as such. They paid and continue to pay for these programs. Therefore, in our theoretical land of "no voting for people on welfare" I think these people should continue to be allowed their right to vote.
 
I get a kick out of the "in theory" and "ideology" folks. I fukn hate the MSM.

When does your theoretical ideology change??? What does it take to change your mind as to your affilitation??

The ACA should be the last straw, (after Benghazi - IRS - Voter fraud - EBT fraud - Fast and Furious - Veterans getting fucked in the arse...etc...etc) not the 1st straw or the "Well, it should have worked, maybe next time we Dims will get our shit together but we're going to spend millions more trying again" straw. O_o:thumbsdown:

2c.

cback0220 said:
I would check your stats. Comparing welfare money by stated isn't always the best comparison, welfare should be higher in Hawaii than in NC. You prolly need 58K a year to live there. My army buddies said they couldn't afford beers when they were stationed at Schofield.
Above you also stated that while receiving money from the Feds you shouldn't be able to vote, well by that logic, servicemembers, veterans, and govt employees should not get to vote either.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that BEING EMPLOYED by the government is 180 degrees away from receiving EBT / food stamps / free IPhones. For you to not understand that inferrence is incomprehensible.

I was in Honolulu last year and linked up with Teufel. Fairly certain that I saw PLENTY of GI's on the beach enjoying a few but I'd have to ask T about that. ....not a good analogy.
 
Good points. But AFAIK, there is nothing related to welfare in our Constitution. The right to vote, however, is in it. So instead of unConstitutionally restricting legitimate rights, let's restrict things that are NOT fundamental rights. I have no fundamental objection to welfare and other social handouts, if for no other reason it keeps large swathes of people from resorting to violent crime in order to feed themselves and their families. The issue isn't welfare per se, it is how it is administered. Welfare should be subsistence living only. You shouldn't be able to attain a middle-class lifestyle by being on the public dole. Welfare should pay less than any legitimate profession. Enough to live healthy on, but that's about it. There should also be some social stigma attached to being on the public dole, if one is healthy enough to work.

Finally, there should be no "jobs that Americans aren't willing to do" (a frequent justification for illegal alien labor) with so many Americans on public assistance for so long. If someone wants anything more than a subsistence handout for the government, go out and do one of those jobs currently being performed by non-citizens while healthy welfare recipients sit on your ass. Tired of Ramen and welfare cheese? Want a fancy cell phone? A nice car? Go out there and earn it.
 
RB said:
I get a kick out of the "in theory" and "ideology" folks. I fukn hate the MSM.

When does your theoretical ideology change??? What does it take to change your mind as to your affilitation??

The ACA should be the last straw, (after Benghazi - IRS - Voter fraud - EBT fraud - Fast and Furious - Veterans getting fucked in the arse...etc...etc) not the 1st straw or the "Well, it should have worked, maybe next time we Dims will get our shit together but we're going to spend millions more trying again" straw. O_o:thumbsdown:

2c.
Click to expand...

Ideologically I think that a solid healtchcare system will save our country money.
 
The stats in that report were adjusted for COLA. Hawaii does have a very high cost of living, but also very high unemployment. That report compared welfare funds to funds earned through employment in that state. There are signs everywhere concerning the high level of pickpockets, and smash and grabs in vehicles, etc., and it is real problem.

And thank you for pointing out the receipt of govt money. I did not mean to include all govt employees, etc. As you probably surmised, I was specifically referring to welfare recipients. And I am not including those on SSC, Medicare, etc.
 
Deathy McDeath said:
It's ludicrous because you're punishing someone for being poor or otherwise using assistance. Whether someone is a welfare cheat or if they're simply down on their luck, you want to take away a constitutionally-protected right. And what kind of welfare are we talking about? I received a Pell Grant this year, and the state of California waived my tuition fees because I got great grades. Between my EAS and the start of my GI bill benefits (a period of roughly four months) I was on unemployment. Should I not be able to vote? My Dad will be drawing Social Security and disability payments (non-VA). Should he not vote either? What about the approximately 50 million Americans currently covered by Medicare? Those are all forms of welfare and the people covered by them would be excluded from voting.

You know why welfare spending went up during the first four years of Obama's presidency? It could've had something to do with it coinciding with the recession, maybe. This notion that people on the dole are simply going to vote for the guy that gives them more stuff is pretty simplistic. You want to know an interesting thing that the 2010 census revealed? That white, rural women are the single greatest group of welfare recipients in the country (for the life of me I cannot find the data, but I've posted it here before). So that group voted mostly for Obama in the 2012 election, right? Nope. Check figure 1B http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/the-elephant-in-the-exit_b_2094354.html
Click to expand...

I should have been more clear but my point is that people on long term, combined source (section-8, SNAP, unemployment, etc) welfare.

Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats. http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2011/12/poll/topline.pdf Why do you think that is? Which party is it that continues to raise [total] welfare? Which has been trying to implement a drug testing program for benefits? How are we going to get that part of the budget square when we know that which ever party is seen as cutting the status quo is seen as uncaring, regardless of how much waste and abuse is present in the programs? Your attempt at race baiting is ridiculous - here are the welfare statistics for 2013 from US Department of Health and Human Services showing the same number, within a percentage point, of whites and blacks on some form of welfare. http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ (these numbers even support @JHD in his point that welfare recipients can earn more money that a lot of paying jobs and in so doing creates a dependant state) or is you want it broken down further this CNN exit poll shows there is a 50% difference in who white women vs black women voted for. Again I find it a bit silly that you would interject race into this... From the same CNN poll you can see the disparity of voting records as it relates to income. If you want that broken down by Red or Blue states that can be found here. http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/04/red-state-rising.html

As to your comments on the economy, even now with unemployment dropping from 10% to 9.4% food stamp enrollment is still climbing (may have something to do with the USDA's recruitment efforts I mentioned earlier). It has increased every single month under the Obama administration with 43.6 million people in the US on food stamps. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm The increase in our nations welfare spending is one of the biggest reasons the 2011 annual budget deficits were near $1.5 trillion dollars. In the 2011 budget Obama submitted to Congress, over $1.4 trillion is to be spent on Medicare and Medicaid, with Medicaid the fasting growing component. Next to defense spending, health and human services is the largest component of discretionary spending in the that budget, at $83.5 billion dollars. However housing is not that far behind, at $41.6 billion. http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...4sZTJQdi8OeRfwirZ8H8QRPg&ust=1382362415752324

This model is not sustainable and with so many people on some or combined forms of welfare you aren't going to get meaningful reform so long as welfare can be used to buy votes which is what the Democratic party has been doing.
 

Similar threads

AWP
The Racing Thread
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
3K
GOTWA
G
AWP
Computer Help
Replies
4
Views
82
RackMaster
RackMaster
R.Caerbannog
Distortion of History
2
Replies
32
Views
557
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
AWP
The Aging Crisis in America
Replies
8
Views
247
Dame
Dame
ni.ks9041990
VHP (Veterans History Project)
Replies
0
Views
53
ni.ks9041990
ni.ks9041990
Back
Top