Jump to content


Photo

The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All


  • Please log in to reply
5324 replies to this topic

#41 meazza

meazza

    ASR 1927

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,779 posts

Posted 12 January 2014 - 01:07 PM

Wasn't the ACA supposed to prevent this sort of thing?


Could they remake Breaking Bad with the ACA in place?

#42 B-Man

B-Man

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,290 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 11:11 AM

Spanish Obamacare Website Is ‘Written in Spanglish’

On Wonkblog, Ezra Klein reports that “Obamacare’s Spanish-language Web site is ‘written in Spanglish’”:



HealthCare.gov’s October 1st launch was a disaster. But at least it was a punctual disaster. The site’s Spanish-language version – CuidadoDeSalud.gov — launched more than two months late. It doesn’t look like the Obama administration used the extra time wisely.

ABC News reports ”the translations were so clunky and full of grammatical mistakes that critics say they must have been computer-generated.” The situation is even worse when applicants begin digging into then nitty-gritty of the plans. ”When you get into the details of the plans, it’s not all written in Spanish. It’s written in Spanglish, so we end up having to translate it for them,” Adrian Madriz, a health care navigator in Miami, told ABC.

The Web site, for instance, translates the word ”premium” into “prima” — a word more typically used in Spanish to denote a female cousin. Veronica Plaza, a professor who teaches medical Spanish at the University of New Mexico, told ABC that the site should’ve used ”cuotas,” ”couta mensual” or “costo annual.”



Oh, and the website doesn’t work:


{snip}

Can you imagine the reaction that we would see in Salon, the New York Times, and on MSNBC if this were a Republican administration’s mistake? The “lack of care” would be “indicative of an attitude” and of an “Anglo-centric” worldview that smacked of “white supremacy.” Republicans would be accused of treating Hispanics as “second-class citizens” and of condemning them to unequal “separate but equal” status. Then we would get the endless discussion of how this was going to hurt the party with a group whose votes they already struggle to win.

The full story here.



.

Edited by B-Man, 13 January 2014 - 11:16 AM.


#43 Nanker

Nanker

    The Beer Was Cold!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,057 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 12:41 PM

Common man! Get off his back! B. O. said he was personally gonna take charge of fixin' that damned website once and for all.
Furthermore, he had a 15 minute conference call with the top IT minds in the country... the CEOs of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Oracle and even had Michelle's college chum in on it too. They all told him to just use Google Translate. I'm sure of it. ****. He could get it launched in 30 different languages using that tool.

So don't quibble with the executive decision to use Google Translate. If it isn't right, well... someone else made that happen.

"Now I've got to get back to my mop and pail, and finish cleaning up this mess that George Bush created," said B. O. "Sweet Jesus. You'd think signing up for healthcare insurance wouldn't be this difficult. It's hard to sign up for insurance in America. But it's not MY fault!"

#44 OCinBuffalo

OCinBuffalo

    Who wants some more "data journalism"? LOL-->Vox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,733 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 01:33 PM

Well Democrats? Now you're F'ed: http://www.bloomberg...nt-website.html

Should have gone with one of the Bigs from the beginning. $45 million on day 1. :lol: Get used to it. Accenture will rob you blind, and, the Rs will be killing you for it. There's practically nothing that will change this dynamic.

Bringing them in now? Oh man...I'm just shaking my head here. Accenture: "hey, we're coming into a mess, that we didn't create, therefore...this thing over here is necessary to the success/presents a threat to success...blah, blah = pay us more money/we need another 50 people!"

That's the theme of every single document from now until forever...or...when this terrible law goes away.

However, there's one upside for Ds: now that Accenture is involved, they will protect this endless fountain of billable hours. That means whatever lie, cheat, or steal has to occur? Will occur. Ds can benefit from real consultants in those Committee meetings.

But, remember: what seems like an upside, can turn into a downside very quickly. Reality: Accenture will turn on anyone, especially the people that hired them. I've seen this 3 times out of 3. Every single damning email, every single status report, will be forwarded to the media. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that had already started. That's merely the competent approach, especially for this kind of project. Accenture's managers aren't going be left holding the bag here. No chance.

It's going to be interesting. What exactly happens when a large, unaccountable, because they believe they are above it all, organization in Accenture, meets another large, unaccountable, because they believe they are above it all, organization in the Obama Administration?

----------------------------------------

Hmmm I wonder: whatever happened to Google, Apple and the rest of the Valley people? Somebody seemed to think they were the answer.... :lol: Never.

They've been moved aside: because the NFL in IT has now been engaged...as I said would happen. :lol: Valley people do a fine job making consumer stuff. They are good blacksmiths. But, when it comest to full-scale corporate? You need the best = the people with factories, who know how to run them.

#45 Keukasmallies

Keukasmallies

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,548 posts

Posted 14 January 2014 - 08:31 AM

The Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) gives rise to a new word, "fustercluck." It's so bad, in so many ways, that no prior terms encompass the enormity of its failure.

#46 B-Large

B-Large

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,288 posts

Posted 14 January 2014 - 12:21 PM

http://www.realclear...ead_121220.html


I'd love to see this implemented in some States and see how performs. Gotta love Colorado, getting ahead of the curve on things...

#47 LABillzFan

LABillzFan

    Plan Ahea!!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,390 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:14 PM

Another day, another Obamacare deadline extended. This time it's for those with pre-existing conditions...its second extension in as many months after less than 30,000 participate.

As they say in NJ: Damn this traffic jam.

Edited by LABillzFan, 15 January 2014 - 01:14 PM.


#48 JuanGuzman

JuanGuzman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:52 PM

Another day, another Obamacare deadline extended. This time it's for those with pre-existing conditions...its second extension in as many months after less than 30,000 participate.

As they say in NJ: Damn this traffic jam.


Honestly who cares about this? Is extending a deadline bad thing? Must all previous dates be set in stone even if your priors have changed. Enrollment got of to a shakey start no wonder they are extending deadlines to give people more time to sign up. Do you want governments to commit to arbitrary deadlines, to me the extension sounds like a good idea.

#49 Azalin

Azalin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,653 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:03 PM

Do you want governments to commit to arbitrary deadlines

what is an extension if not another arbitrary deadline?

#50 LABillzFan

LABillzFan

    Plan Ahea!!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,390 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:26 PM

Honestly who cares about this? Is extending a deadline bad thing? Must all previous dates be set in stone even if your priors have changed. Enrollment got of to a shakey start no wonder they are extending deadlines to give people more time to sign up. Do you want governments to commit to arbitrary deadlines, to me the extension sounds like a good idea.


Enough extended deadlines will lead to the collapse of an insurance industry trying to adhere to one set of rules while the fools in DC change them over and over. This will lead quickly to the upcoming insurance industry bailout that will cost us untold billions of dollars before the fool-in-chief starts pushing single payer.

So to answer your question...I care about it, and will continue to care about it, because when this law implodes, it will hurt way more than it ever had a chance to help.

#51 B-Man

B-Man

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,290 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:38 PM

LIBRE has put out this ad out against Joe Garcia in Florida. You see, Rep. Garcia – when he’s not hiring chiefs of staff who later get convicted for election fraud – has been recently trying to quietly distance himself from Obamacare. Presumably this has been because Obamacare has been generally awful… and awful and arrogantly dismissive of Latino voters. So LIBRE has set up The Accountability Project:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INSKJhDY67o

“This law does not put patients first,” the physician, Grazie Pozo Christie, says in the ad. “My patients ask if I will continue to provide care for them, and it pains me to say, ‘I don’t have an answer.’”


I don’t mind theorizing about policy matters. It is, in fact, a necessary part of the process. But, in their enthusiasm, the Democratic party leadership seems to have forgotten that real people have to live with the consequences of poor political decisions. Joe Garcia’s prior support of Obamacare has resulted in people getting scared and worried; he has materially made people worse-off, and there is absolutely no reason to let him or any other Democrat hide from the consequences. Garcia is trying, of course (the usual declined-to-comment), but he should not be allowed to succeed. We absolutely must hold our politicians responsible when they do their constituents wrong, whether those politicians like it or not.

#52 DC Tom

DC Tom

    Also sniping at retards from the balcony

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,506 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:41 PM

what is an extension if not another arbitrary deadline?


A complete lack of deadline.

Honestly who cares about this? Is extending a deadline bad thing? Must all previous dates be set in stone even if your priors have changed. Do you want governments to commit to arbitrary deadlines


Yes, when the deadlines ARE CODIFIED IN FEDERAL STATUTES.

"Do you want the President to be bound by the law?" Jesus... :death:

#53 meazza

meazza

    ASR 1927

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,779 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:37 PM


Edited by meazza, 15 January 2014 - 08:38 PM.


#54 FireChan

FireChan

    All Pro

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,964 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 09:18 PM

Is anyone here against the ACA philosophically? Or just against it's (failed) implementation?

#55 DC Tom

DC Tom

    Also sniping at retards from the balcony

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,506 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 09:54 PM

Is anyone here against the ACA philosophically? Or just against it's (failed) implementation?


Fallacious question. It's failed implementation is part and parcel with its philosophy of being one of the worst possible compromises between a free market and a socialist system.

I said it when the law was passed, and I'll say it again: I'm philosophically opposed to socialized medicine, but even that would be preferable to this ridiculous abortion. In as much as I'm "philosophically opposed" to the ACA, it's because I live in reality and am philosophically opposed to wishful thinking.

#56 FireChan

FireChan

    All Pro

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,964 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 11:21 PM

Fallacious question. It's failed implementation is part and parcel with its philosophy of being one of the worst possible compromises between a free market and a socialist system.

I said it when the law was passed, and I'll say it again: I'm philosophically opposed to socialized medicine, but even that would be preferable to this ridiculous abortion. In as much as I'm "philosophically opposed" to the ACA, it's because I live in reality and am philosophically opposed to wishful thinking.

I meant in a broader scope of government funded national health care.

#57 TakeYouToTasker

TakeYouToTasker

    The smartest man in the room.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,006 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 11:34 PM

I meant in a broader scope of government funded national health care.

I am absolutely philosophically opposed, because centrally planned systems have always been far less effective than the market.

#58 3rdnlng

3rdnlng

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,266 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 11:46 PM

I meant in a broader scope of government funded national health care.


I am against socialized medicine. I am also against people who can't make things work. Originally the small fines for non participation were a tell-tale sign that the ACA would never get the young and healthy participation that it needed to even somewhat work. The rollout and subsequent edicts by Obama have made this thing of theirs a gigantic FUBAR. Now your statement that I bolded is idiotic. The government doesn't fund anything, the people do. Anytime someone in this country receives a subsidy or something for free it is part of wealth redistribution.

#59 FireChan

FireChan

    All Pro

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,964 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:15 AM

I am against socialized medicine. I am also against people who can't make things work. Originally the small fines for non participation were a tell-tale sign that the ACA would never get the young and healthy participation that it needed to even somewhat work. The rollout and subsequent edicts by Obama have made this thing of theirs a gigantic FUBAR. Now your statement that I bolded is idiotic. The government doesn't fund anything, the people do. Anytime someone in this country receives a subsidy or something for free it is part of wealth redistribution.


Didn't mean funded, meant run. That's on me.

I am absolutely philosophically opposed, because centrally planned systems have always been far less effective than the market.


Effective for the poor too?

#60 Keukasmallies

Keukasmallies

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,548 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:54 AM

Two of the goals of the ACA are to decrease insurance costs and decrease emergency room visits. Just check out the most recent numbers related to both objectives; how's it working'? Well, for me, my premium has increased each of the past two years and this year as well. This years increase is 9.6%. Additionally, my co-pay for seeing a specialist has increased 14.2%. Sorry, no link to validate these figures as my checkbook isn't on line. (Increased means I pay more, not less, and increased is the opposite of decreased.))

Emergency room visits are slowly rising according to national trend figures. (Rising in this instance means growing in number; growing is the opposite of shrinking.)

So, yeah, I'm opposed to a program that is achieving the exact opposite of it's stated objectives.

Edited by Keukasmallies, 16 January 2014 - 06:59 AM.