Republicans know they're in trouble once the website problems are solved

[Svnla]

And Republicans essentially cost us $24B with their government shutdown fiasco and we've got nada to show for it. What was your point again?

We spent that much, the cost is continue to climb, we had six (6) people that were able to enroll by the using that website, the website is still not working smoothly as of right now, and you have to ask what was the point?


Note - I never said what the Republicans did during the shutdown was all that great/smart either.

Funny that you'll accept a $500M figure from the "liberal media" as "fact" when it tells you what you want to hear but I suppose if it told you something you didn't want to hear it would be dismissed.

Feel free to quote any of my post on this whole site (not just P&N) that I dismissed well know "liberal sources" when they did not support my view. Take your time, sweet cheek.

 

[sactoking]

I'm sorry, but I can't find the link to the article here and I have done a cursory look at the WaPo sight and am not seeing it. I would really like to read it. Could you please link it?

Sorry about that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...24-41d661b0bb78_story.html?wprss=rss_politics

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We spent that much, the cost is continue to climb, we had six (6) people that were able to enroll by the using that website, the website is still not working smoothly as of right now, and you have to ask what was the point?


Note - I never said what the Republicans did during the shutdown was all that great either.

I guess I missed the part where you loudly bitched about the costs of the shutdown. If anyone wants to get pissed off about wasteful spending...that's a damn good place to start imo. Comparatively, $500mm is chump change assuming that's the real number...which it isn't.

 

[Fern]

And Republicans essentially cost us $24B with their government shutdown fiasco and we've got nada to show for it. What was your point again?

I guess I missed the part where you loudly bitched about the costs of the shutdown. If anyone wants to get pissed off about wasteful spending...that's a damn good place to start imo. Comparatively, $500mm is chump change assuming that's the real number...which it isn't.

Yeah, I've read the so-called cost. I remain unimpressed. Here's why:

Here’s a breakdown of some of the economic cost by our calculations:

* About $3.1 billion in lost government services, according to the research firm IHS

I don't know what this is. I would calculate the loss from this as govt wages we paid for work that didn't get down. (Essentially paid vacation.) If that's what they're claiming I would agree, however I'm unable to tell.

$152 million per day in lost travel spending, according to the U.S. Travel Association

If we "lost" $152 million per day in travel spending it seems to me to mean the govt US didn't spend the $152M. I don't see how this a loss, particularly not for us taxpayers. If you're the travel industry the trips, if necessary, will still be made, so at worst it's a deferral, not a loss.

$76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down, according to the National Park Service

If they mean lost revenue, and I'm guessing they do because I've never heard of the National parks being highly profitable, well they need to balance that against expenses saved.

$217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area alone.

So, we didn't spend $217M per day? Again, sounds like a savings for us taxpayers. In actuality the work will still be done, so it's merely deferred, not a cost.

Read more: Government Shutdown Cost $24 Billion, According to Standard & Poor's | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/1...ment-shutdown-cost-the-economy/#ixzz2joRjpgcM

If you play those kind of games when estimating costs the HC website's costs is far above anything yet estimated.

The cost to the shutdown is basically wages paid for time not worked. Counting money not spent (e.g., travel) as a cost is ridiculous.

Fern

 

[TerryMathews]

I'll watch it later but it's telling that the uploader has written "People are figuring out just how much 'free' health care costs" right in the description. ACA was never sold as free healthcare, so that is a straw man. Maybe you can tell us all how that affects the veracity of the video, you know, as an exercise in critical thinking.

Did you ever watch?

 

[ivwshane]

ABC News (liberal source) said otherwise:


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/500-million-obamacare-website-bust-20631716


You were saying something about talking point? Nothing about my previous post about the blind leading the blind? Changes we can believe in, a lot of changes to fix the darn thing (hopefully) indeed.

Let's see, my link was updated after new info came out on 10/31/2013, when was you link updated?

Right about now you should feel like a tool.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/10/25/fox-news-only-overestimated-healthcaregov-cost/196603

Polly want a cracker?

 

[werepossum]

Sorry about that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...24-41d661b0bb78_story.html?wprss=rss_politics

Wow!

“They were running the biggest start-up in the world, and they didn’t have anyone who had run a start-up, or even run a business,” said David Cutler, a Harvard professor and health adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign, who was not the individual who provided the memo to The Washington Post but confirmed he was the author. “It’s very hard to think of a situation where the people best at getting legislation passed are best at implementing it. They are a different set of skills.”

Inside the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the main agency responsible for the exchanges, there was no single administrator whose full-time job was to manage the project.

Just . . . wow. No single full time administrator? No one who had run a start-up, or even run a business? This also shows the problems inherent with running such a program with the bureaucracy in charge - with almost everything within their power, the temptation to continue fiddling with the rules is immense. Yet how does one build a web site when the rules are in flux? How does one get health insurance companies to get on board?

The lack of dedicated funding for the federal government's exchange points to the expectation being that every state would set up its exchange, and after the initial period be responsible for funding the program, with the federal government thus able to set whatever goals the bureaucrats wished without any financial accountability. I wonder to what extent the states got wise and to what extent the Pubbies were able to kill the exchanges to deny Obama a toehold.

 

[Svnla]

Let's see, my link was updated after new info came out on 10/31/2013, when was you link updated?

Right about now you should feel like a tool.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/10/25/fox-news-only-overestimated-healthcaregov-cost/196603

Polly want a cracker?

LOL, so now you can't dispute my source, have to use " but..but ..but my link is fresher". Weak, totally weak. Are you freaking for real? See my post about I did provide a valid link for my information from a well know source. You have a problem with it? Go bitch and blame ABC News or better yet, blame it for all the problems of ACA website. Seem like the Obama administration is blaming everyone/everything under the sun except themselves.

See the post above from Fern about cost (the true cost) calculation. I don't need to repeat the information.


You were saying? Still nothing about my question of how much the total cost for this website project after everything is done? Still nothing about my original post above about how Obama folks lied about the true problems of the website? What is the matter, Polly? Look like you are the one need a bigger cracker to fullfil your master wish.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah, can't debate with facts, bring out the "but but..but BUSH" line. Anything else, how about the kitchen sink over there? Or keep on bashing the insurance companies on the "you can keep it" broken promise of Obama, eh?

I provided a valid link to support my point/data and where I get my number from. I don't pull crap out of my butt like certain posters in this site. What do you think the final total cost (everything) of the website will be? Over or under $500 million?

Hee-hee. I asked where that $500M number came from, and you just quoted somebody else repeating it. Apparently, that number just flew out of the ether.

I pointed out that other lies have gone halfway around the planet before the truth got its pants on, from the Bush era, simply because they're recent & memorable. Perhaps I should have used Reagan's famous "I don't recall" instead, huh?

Sebelius testified, under oath, that the cost was more like $200M. Perhaps you could link sworn testimony that contradicts her?

Not likely, and it's not likely that you'll even try. You already found something to believe in, something you want to believe, and will defend it no matter what credible evidence to the contrary may be presented.

 

[werepossum]

Let's see, my link was updated after new info came out on 10/31/2013, when was you link updated?

Right about now you should feel like a tool.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/10/25/fox-news-only-overestimated-healthcaregov-cost/196603

Polly want a cracker?

Your laughable MediaMatters post assumes that all those government workers cost nothing. If this is true, then we should be able to realize some real savings by slashing H&HS's budget next year.

 

[Svnla]

Hee-hee. I asked where that $500M number came from, and you just quoted somebody else repeating it. Apparently, that number just flew out of the ether.

I pointed out that other lies have gone halfway around the planet before the truth got its pants on, from the Bush era, simply because they're recent & memorable. Perhaps I should have used Reagan's famous "I don't recall" instead, huh?

Sebelius testified, under oath, that the cost was more like $200M. Perhaps you could link sworn testimony that contradicts her?

Not likely, and it's not likely that you'll even try. You already found something to believe in, something you want to believe, and will defend it no matter what credible evidence to the contrary may be presented.

I cited a well know new source to back up my statement.

See the post above from Fern. I could tell the poster (Doc) that said the cost of the shutdown was not 24 billion as he said and provided source(s) to contractdict his number. So was his number wrong and my number is right or the true number is somewhere out there?

I don't believe anything about the government statments or numbers. The main thing is the darn thing (website) did not work, is not working, and who knows if it will work in its current configuration.

 

[ivwshane]

Your laughable MediaMatters post assumes that all those government workers cost nothing. If this is true, then we should be able to realize some real savings by slashing H&HS's budget next year.

I cited a well know new source to back up my statement.

See the post above from Fern. I could tell the poster (Doc) that said the cost of the shutdown was not 24 billion as he said and provided source(s) to contractdict his number. So was his number wrong and my number is right or the true number is somewhere out there?

I don't believe anything about the government statments or numbers. The main thing is the darn thing (website) did not work, is not working, and who knows if it will work in its current configuration.

Lol! Two fucking tools who just essentially admitted that the numbers were made up with zero proof to back up their claims.

Btw, I didn't say anything about your source other than it being out of date. You will notice my source updates its article multiple times as new info came in. My second link shows the origin of your number.

Keep parroting brother!

 

[dank69]

...



Feel free to quote any of my post on this whole site (not just P&N) that I dismissed well know "liberal sources" when they did not support my view. Take your time, sweet cheek.

The fact that you label ABC as liberal media is enough, "sweet cheek." But since you asked, your post 416 is you quoting a source that debunks the claim you then go on to repeat in your reply. This is you dismissing evidence contrary to the view you wish to continue to hold on to.

Did you ever watch?

I could only get through half of it before I couldn't stand the ambience of doom. Calling it a hack piece does a disservice to hack pieces. I prefer to get my statistics from slightly less biased sources.

 

[Svnla]

The fact that you label ABC as liberal media is enough, "sweet cheek." But since you asked, your post 416 is you quoting a source that debunks the claim you then go on to repeat in your reply. This is you dismissing evidence contrary to the view you wish to continue to hold on to.

Still no post from me that dismissed well know liberal sources when they did not support my view? Shocking, shocking I am telling you. :whiste:

Better luck next time, kiddo.

Oh, I remember you now. If you can't provide posts from me that you claimed, don't bother reply or quote me and I will do the same.

Lol! Two fucking tools who just essentially admitted that the numbers were made up with zero proof to back up their claims.

Btw, I didn't say anything about your source other than it being out of date. You will notice my source updates its article multiple times as new info came in. My second link shows the origin of your number.

Keep parroting brother!

I provided source to back up my number in my previous post. If you don't like the source, contact them and bitch to them. I did not pull the number out of my butt.

Oh, the cost is "only" 200 million instead of 500, so the website problem is only "less than half" as bad?

 

[ivwshane]

Still no post from me that dismissed well know liberal sources when they did not support my view? Shocking, shocking I am telling you. :whiste:

Better luck next time, kiddo.

Oh, I remember you now. If you can't provide posts from me that you claimed, don't bother reply or quote me and I will do the same.



I provided source to back up my number in my previous post. If you don't like the source, contact them and bitch to them. I did not pull the number out of my butt.

Oh, the cost is "only" 200 million instead of 500, so the website problem is only "less than half" as bad?

It's $175 million, and yeah it's not as bad. How much did the most conservative estimates put the cost of the government shut down at?

I bitched at you for your failing to fact check the talking points you parrot.

 

[WackyDan]

California is at fault there as well. We have an arrangement that lets consumer purchase plans across county lines, which is imperative to ensure our rural communities (read: everything not Las Vegas or Reno) can access care. If CA or CoveredCA prohibit that, well, that's their fault.

Not according to various talking heads... The Covered CA thing is part of push to support the ACA is it not?

 

[dank69]

Still no post from me that dismissed well know liberal sources when they did not support my view? Shocking, shocking I am telling you. :whiste:

Better luck next time, kiddo.

Oh, I remember you now. If you can't provide posts from me that you claimed, don't bother reply or quote me and I will do the same.

...

Hello, I pointed to post 416 to back my claim, retard.

 

[Svnla]

It's $175 million, and yeah it's not as bad. How much did the most conservative estimates put the cost of the government shut down at?

I bitched at you for your failing to fact check the talking points you parrot.

If you want to bitch at the data, go and tell ABC News. Roll up and see my answer to Doc about the shutdown cost.

It's not as bad?

Really, then why Sebelius said at one of her testimony with Congress that the whole thing was "debacle"? Why Obama himself said many times that he was very unhappy/mad at the progress just days after the roll out? I don't remember any of them ever said "not as bad" as you claimed.

Last time I check, debacle =! not as bad. IT IS VERY BAD. Imagine someone said Bush Jr. response to Katrina was not as bad, eh?

Oh, since you said the cost was $175M, but another poster in this thread said it was $200M .

Sebelius testified, under oath, that the cost was more like $200M

　
OMG, die, die, die, your number was not correct, being updated (sarcastic).

Anyway, my main point from my previous post was not about the cost but the lies and the blame that Obama administration tried to creat to diverse from the true root causes of the huge debacle.

Nearly 20 million Americans have now experienced the broken Obamacare website first hand. But Ben Simo, a past president of the Association for Software Testing, found something more than a cumbersome login or a blank screen—clear evidence of subpar coding on the site.

In mid-October, he went to Healthcare.gov to help a family member get insurance, only to find his progress blocked. When he investigated the cause, he discovered that one part of the website had created so much “cookie” tracking data that it appeared to exceed the site’s capacity to accept his login information. That’s the mark of a fractured development team.



At the time, President Obama was still arguing that the main culprit for the breakdowns was the popularity of the site. “The website got overwhelmed by the volume,” he said on Oct. 4. The reality, of course, was far more dire.

The basic architecture of the site, built by federal contractors overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, was flawed in design, poorly tested and ultimately not functional. “You need there to be good people on the inside to make good contracting decisions and good people on the outside to do the work,” explained Clay Johnson, a Democratic technology consultant who recently worked as a White House fellow. “Right now, it’s the blind leading the blind.”

Even on the back end of the site, data was garbled and, in some cases, unusable.

Sure, it was not as bad, what the past president of the Association for Software Testing knows anything about website and such, right? Funny how none of you guys dispute that.

Hello, I pointed to post 416 to back my claim, retard.

Dumbass, I asked you to provide posts from me that dismissed liberal sources when they did not support my view as you claimed when you said this:

Funny that you'll accept a $500M figure from the "liberal media" as "fact" when it tells you what you want to hear but I suppose if it told you something you didn't want to hear it would be dismissed.

　
And so far, you still unable to do so, so shove it deep in your lying hole, got it? Simpleton.

 

[Fern]

At this point I don't think anybody knows the cost. ATM, this admin has too many other things to worry about.

And this administration and its officials have shown time and again that they have no credibility: Self-serving statements from Sebelius are not to be relied upon.

Also the matter of 'cost' is a bit complicated. The first issue is how "cost" is defined. many people's first instinct (or those who wish to minimize it) is to only add up checks already cut. But what about bills received (accounts payable) but not yet paid? What about costs accrued but not yet billed? What are the direct costs? What about indirect costs; what is to be included?

Then there's the matter of finding the costs buried in govt budget and financial data. That data is not in a form that readily lends itself to such cost calculation.

In any case it's a moving target as that cost is still rising.

Fern

 

[dank69]

...


Dumbass, I asked you to provide posts from me that dismissed liberal sources when they did not support my view as you claimed when you said this:


　
And so far, you still unable to do so, so shove it deep in your lying hole, got it? Simpleton.

Dumbass, this is you dismissing a source for another source because one told you your talking point was wrong and the other confirmed your talking point:

...

We spent over $500 million USD and several years of work and the cost for the website is climbing higher and fast, and that's what we have got? Hope and Change indeed.

That $500 million figure has been debunked already and is a tell-tale sign of someone regurgitating a talking point.

[URL="http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/24/how-much-did-healthcare-gov-cost/"]http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/24/how-much-did-healthcare-gov-cost/[/URL]

ABC News (liberal source) said otherwise:


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/500-million-obamacare-website-bust-20631716


You were saying something about talking point? Nothing about my previous post about the blind leading the blind? Changes we can believe in, a lot of changes to fix the darn thing (hopefully) indeed.

Wow, look at that, post 416 just like I said the first two times. Got it? Simpleton.

 

[Svnla]

Dumbass, this is you dismissing a source for another source because one told you your talking point was wrong and the other confirmed your talking point:
Wow, look at that, post 416 just like I said the first two times. Got it? Simpleton.

You are not too bright, aren't you?

The other poster provided a link to show that number was lower, I never dismissed it ("OMG, your link is liberal source so it does not count") as you claimed or said the link was not valid or bad or whatever. I acknowledged his link and then I provided my link to show where I got my number from. I saw his link, I provided my link to show him that I did not blow smoke out of my butt. That's how debate should work.

He was the one that said I was the talking point so I returned the favor. When I said the blind leading the blind, it was about the article that I posted in my original post.

Wow. Do you get it now? Dumbass.

 

[dank69]

You are not too bright, aren't you?

The other poster provided a link, I never dismissed it ("OMG, your link is liberal source so it does not count") as you claimed or said the link was not valid or bad or whatever. I provided my link to show where I got my number from. I saw his link, I provided my link. That's how debate should work.

He was the one that said I was the talking point so I returned the favor. When I said the blind leading the blind, it was about the article that I posted in my original post.

Do you get it now? Goodness.

So you provided an older, out of date link in response to his link debunking your older, out of date link and then went on to mock him? Sounds pretty dismissive to me. Also funny that you call me not too bright when you are the one who couldn't figure out which link had better information.

 

[schmuckley]

I hope this thread is alive next year for mid-term elections. LOL
I hope the US as we know it is still around next year for mid-term elections :\

 

[Jhhnn]

I hope this thread is alive next year for mid-term elections. LOL
I hope the US as we know it is still around next year for mid-term elections :\

Chicken Little often?

 

[Svnla]

So you provided an older, out of date link in response to his link debunking your older, out of date link and then went on to mock him? Sounds pretty dismissive to me. Also funny that you call me not too bright when you are the one who couldn't figure out which link had better information.

This is why I called you not too bright.

You jumped into conclusion/made assumption about things that I never said, expressed or implied.

Did I mention anywhere that my link was better (information) than his? Once again, you made that statement, not me.

Oh, since you keep saying about his link. He said the cost was $175M, other poster said Sebelius said it was $200M. DailyKos = http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...uth-or-did-the-site-actually-cost-634-million said it could be from $65M to $120M (from different sources). The numbers are all different from each website. Who has the right number? Who knows.

Funny how you guys have to use strawman (cost of the website) when my main point of my original post (#410) was not about the cost but about the lies, deceptions, and blames that Obama administration created to diverse the attention on the true causes of the huge mess. Still silent, eh? ****crickets**



In other news, the website did not do any final testing (top to bottom) before the launch as required = http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...ed-final-security-requirements-before-launch/

CBS News analysis found that the deadline for final security plans slipped three times from May 6 to July 16. Security assessments to be finished June 7 slid to August 16 and then August 23. The final, required top-to-bottom security tests never got done.

Yup, it was not as bad because Sebelius said Americans have no reason to worry = http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50158184n