The-queen-of-obamaland -

[knapplc]

As I'm reading through carlfense's responses to this... 'thread,' I'm thinking to myself, "Wow, he's really knocking it out of the park here."

 

And then I see Junior's post and I literally LOLed.

[TGHusker]

The question perhaps could have been stated - was there a lack of oversight, or was there something systematic in govt that could have caused this.

Systemic in government? Huh?

 

As noted on your thread, could the continued anti-ACA actions of the House cause the problem (doubtful since they paid out $400m approx to get the website up).

Regarding the bold, if you're saying that the House "paid out $400m approximately," no they did not.

How about House Republicans who refused to appropriate the money the Department of Health and Human Services said it needed to properly implement Obamacare?

 

How about Senate Republicans who tried to intimidate Sebelius out of using existing HHS funds to implement Obamacare? "Would you describe the authority under which you believe you have the ability to conduct such transfers?" Sen. Orrin Hatch demanded at one hearing. It's difficult to imagine the size of the disaster if Sebelius hadn't moved those funds.

 

How about congressional Republicans who refuse to permit the packages of technical fixes and tweaks that laws of this size routinely require?

 

How about Republican governors who told the Obama administration they absolutely had to be left to build their own health-care exchanges -- you'll remember that the House Democrats' health-care plan included a single, national exchange -- and then refused to build, leaving the construction of 34 insurance marketplaces up to HHS?

http://www.washingto...acare-chutzpah/

 

So the specific action would be: Making sure the website was ready for kickoff of ACA. My question then goes to the leader : Who is responsible ? Is it a specific person like the HHS Sec, Her boss, or a system of leadership in govt as a whole - systematic - that it is hard for one person to make a difference whether it be the HHS sec or Pres due to the cumbersomeness of govt.

It's a large and extremely complex system. There will be bugs. It'd be a wonderful start if we could all agree that we should work to make this succeed.

 

The worst part is that I just know that Republicans wouldn't be complaining about the ACA if the website worked perfectly.

Carl, the House appropriates funds for the govt - so the $400k came from action on the Congress. Most likely part funded by the 2008 - 2010 congress -

Let me add - by systematic of govt: think USPO, Veterans Hospitals, Responses to national disasters - The fed govt hasn't been known for its efficiencies.

And by the way, I'd be just find if the website worked perfect. I am not surprise by some glitches but this is something that is almost 3 years in the making. In fact, I told you Carl on I believe your ObamaCare thread that if the ACA works out great, I'll be more than happy to cheer it on. I hope it does. Again, going to my 'label' thread, we have the same goal - health care for all or most - just different paths getting there.

Edited October 25, 2013 by TGHusker

[TGHusker]

The question perhaps could have been stated - was there a lack of oversight, or was there something systematic in govt that could have caused this.

Systemic in government? Huh?

 

As noted on your thread, could the continued anti-ACA actions of the House cause the problem (doubtful since they paid out $400m approx to get the website up).

Regarding the bold, if you're saying that the House "paid out $400m approximately," no they did not.

How about House Republicans who refused to appropriate the money the Department of Health and Human Services said it needed to properly implement Obamacare?

 

How about Senate Republicans who tried to intimidate Sebelius out of using existing HHS funds to implement Obamacare? "Would you describe the authority under which you believe you have the ability to conduct such transfers?" Sen. Orrin Hatch demanded at one hearing. It's difficult to imagine the size of the disaster if Sebelius hadn't moved those funds.

 

How about congressional Republicans who refuse to permit the packages of technical fixes and tweaks that laws of this size routinely require?

 

How about Republican governors who told the Obama administration they absolutely had to be left to build their own health-care exchanges -- you'll remember that the House Democrats' health-care plan included a single, national exchange -- and then refused to build, leaving the construction of 34 insurance marketplaces up to HHS?

http://www.washingto...acare-chutzpah/

 

So the specific action would be: Making sure the website was ready for kickoff of ACA. My question then goes to the leader : Who is responsible ? Is it a specific person like the HHS Sec, Her boss, or a system of leadership in govt as a whole - systematic - that it is hard for one person to make a difference whether it be the HHS sec or Pres due to the cumbersomeness of govt.

It's a large and extremely complex system. There will be bugs. It'd be a wonderful start if we could all agree that we should work to make this succeed.

 

The worst part is that I just know that Republicans wouldn't be complaining about the ACA if the website worked perfectly.

 

good one

[krill]

Let's fire Chuck Hagel because the DoD still uses payroll software written in cobol (not joking) that has become alarmingly error prone...

 

The people responsible for this mess need to be help accountable, but it's not like they have been getting any help. I was reading somewhere that the federal government does something like $80 billion in IT related contracting a year. It's quietly become one the biggest boondoggle honey holes in all of government. Congress is supposed to play an oversight role here to make sure departments of the federal government are not squandering our money, and what have they been up to lately. Not that, not passing laws, not doing anything besides grandstanding and shutting down the government. So don't act surprised or shocked when things like this happen.

[tschu]

Wow.

 

That's all I have to say.

[TGHusker]

Carl, before you knock newsmax the article quotes from reliable Obama friendly CBS and CNN

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-website-failed-hundreds/2013/10/31/id/534078

[carlfense]

What I find interesting is how much energy is being devoted to criticizing the healthcare.gov website. What happens when these issues are fixed? Does the narrative shift to "sure, they fixed the website . . . but this thing is still a total failure"? I seriously wonder how many times the Republicans are going to wreck their ship on this particular rock.

And the answer seems to be yes. The website that was irretrievable broken (and evidence of imminent ACA collapse) is now drastically improved.

 

But, of course, Obamacare is still a total failure . . . and let's all move on to the next talking point and forget the now functioning website that we'd used as evidence.