• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Looks like anti Obamacare propaganda has not worked

Eye roll. Philosophers and sociologists with 10,000s of debt aren't exactly individuals with "intellectual skills." And as a college student who is studying biomedical sciences, I can tell you that yes those departments require A LOT less effort and/or intelligence.

Anyways, beyond that point, I don't automatically lump people into lazy or not lazy. But I don't need to judge people as lazy or not, I simply don't believe in handouts. I believe the government has a duty to invest in things such as infrastructure, research, free condoms, yadi yada. But providing a living and/or healthcare isn't the role of the government. There has to be personal accountability, otherwise we'd all just get Ph.D's in nut scratching and hope someone else is willing enough to pick up the slack.

Who said philosophers and sociologists? LOL
 
That is the idea of insurance. Why you do not understand that health insurance, not healthcare, is socialism pushed onto capitalism which makes it doomed to failure i will never get. Look at it. The idea of insurance is that everyone pays something so when people get hit with huge expense everyone shares the burden because it could be any of us that is hit with the expense. The problem is that we are sucking money off of that for shareholders and executive bonuses. The system where people pay for their own healthcare is one you cannot logically support yourself. The true capitalistic free range health care is where if you do not have the money to pay what the doctors want you do not get service at all. Socialism is why we have medical advances, because people do not have the money to pay mad scientists on their own.

I think you're missing the huge point here. Insurance has to be priced by the relative risk to the individual..... Sorry, but someone who is an obese diabetic is more of an expense then I am, and no, I don't want to cover their cost in exchange for them covering mine. Its not "all of us" contributing as if we are all just some homogeneous mixture who is just as likely to get sick as the next person. Its like 4 buddies splitting the cost of a pizza and one of them expecting to eat 3 quarters of it. Its immoral.


And you're also wrong about these "mad scientists" being unaffordable on their own. There is a growing group of primary care physicians who do not take any kind of insurance, and still provide the highest quality care you can find for anywhere from $50-$200 a month for ANYONE. Its amazing how cheap and effective healthcare can be when doctors own their own practice and aren't burdened by paperwork costs, malpractice insurance, and the likes. Sure, I'd say you'd still need health insurance for disasters, cancer, emergencies and the like. But considering 75% of all healthcare costs comes from people with chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, hypercholestrolemia, etc. etc., a vast majority of healthcare delivery can occur in a model which requires absolutely no insurance.
 
Who said philosophers and sociologists? LOL

They are the ones who seem to spend the most on their "intellectual skills" and yet have the highest unemployment rates.

The market has a huge demand for intellectual skills. Those who graduate with the skills the market needs have relatively little trouble finding employment compared to those who do not.
 
I think you're missing the huge point here. Insurance has to be priced by the relative risk to the individual..... Sorry, but someone who is an obese diabetic is more of an expense then I am, and no, I don't want to cover their cost in exchange for them covering mine. Its not "all of us" contributing as if we are all just some homogeneous mixture who is just as likely to get sick as the next person. Its like 4 buddies splitting the cost of a pizza and one of them expecting to eat 3 quarters of it. Its immoral.

You see now you are getting into the problems. When you exclude someone based on profit which is how insurance companies work then they start running down the slippery slope of excluding everyone that might be expensive because really it is much more profitable to collect money from people while they are healthy and never pay out. Really at that point the person who is getting a payout is portrayed as the enemy as you have and not as someone who is just trying to get what they are contracted to do. Such an insurance company as you describe would quickly become a scam merely because paying out for any reason sucks and lowers profits. Part of the problem is people could not rely on the contract to cover them. Now I can agree that perhaps there are some ways for us to improve our detection of scams and fraud and punish those people for doing that, but I am not for punishing everyone because a few people will try to scam the system.

And you're also wrong about these "mad scientists" being unaffordable on their own. There is a growing group of primary care physicians who do not take any kind of insurance, and still provide the highest quality care you can find for anywhere from $50-$200 a month for ANYONE. Its amazing how cheap and effective healthcare can be when doctors own their own practice and aren't burdened by paperwork costs, malpractice insurance, and the likes. Sure, I'd say you'd still need health insurance for disasters, cancer, emergencies and the like. But considering 75% of all healthcare costs comes from people with chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, hypercholestrolemia, etc. etc., a vast majority of healthcare delivery can occur in a model which requires absolutely no insurance.

Though most people view this as being to cover major medicasl expenses and there are things like deductables which keep people paying for their regular doctor visits which you are ignoring, the fact is that when we do pool our money together we are able to provide the best training for a doctor than we can do alone. Part of the problem is that right now our doctors come mainly from the area of people who can afford it. Where I would say we should work towards people who are the best at it, and the affording thing we should all cover. It is one of the problems with our pay for education system. It is not giving us the competition advancement demands. People become doctors because it is a way to make money, not because they are any good at it. Not all doctors are like that, but there are enough that it has caused problems. Ambition does not equal skill.
 
They are the ones who seem to spend the most on their "intellectual skills" and yet have the highest unemployment rates.

The market has a huge demand for intellectual skills. Those who graduate with the skills the market needs have relatively little trouble finding employment compared to those who do not.

I see you have an ego complex (e.g putting intellectual skills in quotations) a trait common among those who study the "hard sciences."
 
Why do you consider those people lazy?

The vast majority of them are simply dealing with the consequences of their own mistaken actions (dropping out of school, teen pregnancies, criminal behavior, etc...) and they are unwilling to accept the fact that they need to fix themselves. Instead they cry "Whoe is me. It's so horrible that I'm in this situation. Someone save me (from myself)." instead of figuring out what they need to do in order to fix their own situation.
 
I see you have an ego complex (e.g putting intellectual skills in quotations) a trait common among those who study the "hard sciences."

Maybe, maybe not. Who cares. Doesn't change my argument.
 
You see now you are getting into the problems. When you exclude someone based on profit which is how insurance companies work then they start running down the slippery slope of excluding everyone that might be expensive because really it is much more profitable to collect money from people while they are healthy and never pay out. Really at that point the person who is getting a payout is portrayed as the enemy as you have and not as someone who is just trying to get what they are contracted to do. Such an insurance company as you describe would quickly become a scam merely because paying out for any reason sucks and lowers profits. Part of the problem is people could not rely on the contract to cover them. Now I can agree that perhaps there are some ways for us to improve our detection of scams and fraud and punish those people for doing that, but I am not for punishing everyone because a few people will try to scam the system.

What are you talking about? Is that the best you can come up with? The person who wants 75% of the pizza at 25% of the cost is just being label as the enemy? LOL.



Though most people view this as being to cover major medicasl expenses and there are things like deductables which keep people paying for their regular doctor visits which you are ignoring, the fact is that when we do pool our money together we are able to provide the best training for a doctor than we can do alone. Part of the problem is that right now our doctors come mainly from the area of people who can afford it. Where I would say we should work towards people who are the best at it, and the affording thing we should all cover. It is one of the problems with our pay for education system. It is not giving us the competition advancement demands. People become doctors because it is a way to make money, not because they are any good at it. Not all doctors are like that, but there are enough that it has caused problems. Ambition does not equal skill.

No, doctors come from a group of people who are smart enough to get into med school. As a pre-medical student myself, I know VERY few people if any who can actually afford to pay their way through medical school. $250k in debt is the absolute norm.

And you're still wrong about doctors going in just to make money. You don't survive 16 years of secondary education if you're just in it for the money. You don't survive studying until 2 am every day if you're just in it for money. You don't survive 100 hour work weeks in residency if you're just in it for the money.

And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but your countries that pool their resources together to train doctors (IE to make them government employees) don't get better training. TEN out of the twelve best medical schools in the world are right here in the United States. Where are all of your "lets pool our resources together" countries on this list?
The Best Medical Schools In The World - Academic Ranking of World Universities Ranking

You are completely talking out of your ass on this issue. Its quite unfortunate that not only cannot you not address my points, but you can't even come up with a semi-coherent argument against the straw men you are creating.
 
What are you talking about? Is that the best you can come up with? The person who wants 75% of the pizza at 25% of the cost is just being label as the enemy? LOL.





No, doctors come from a group of people who are smart enough to get into med school. As a pre-medical student myself, I know VERY few people if any who can actually afford to pay their way through medical school. $250k in debt is the absolute norm.

And you're still wrong about doctors going in just to make money. You don't survive 16 years of secondary education if you're just in it for the money. You don't survive studying until 2 am every day if you're just in it for money. You don't survive 100 hour work weeks in residency if you're just in it for the money.

And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but your countries that pool their resources together to train doctors (IE to make them government employees) don't get better training. TEN out of the twelve best medical schools in the world are right here in the United States. Where are all of your "lets pool our resources together" countries on this list?
The Best Medical Schools In The World - Academic Ranking of World Universities Ranking

You are completely talking out of your ass on this issue. Its quite unfortunate that not only cannot you not address my points, but you can't even come up with a semi-coherent argument against the straw men you are creating.

That is all very nice, and I recognize your opinion. and do you have anything more than your brash statement?
 
That is all very nice, and I recognize your opinion. and do you have anything more than your brash statement?

Sigh, I give a long and detailed logical explanation of why your argument is mistaken, and you resort to labeling it as just my opinion? Disappointing, to say the least.
 
Yay! The abject failure is proof of it's complete success. That's pretty funny in a very pathetic way.

Hows that BAILOUT thing going.........You say that AIG is a success........LMAO!!!

Why is the criminal empire of Goldman Saks still around?
 
The fact that it crapped out tells you that the infrastructure and/or design was crappy.
No, it does not. It tells you there were more visitors than it was prepared to handle. Given the fact it handled nearly 3 million people yesterday alone, that does not indicate poor infrastructure or programming, but rather a simple overload of visitors to a site which will likely never have to handle that large of a load ever again.

The fact that there were no error messages even though the software failed to work at a basic level tells you that the design was crappy.
What?!

Are you telling me the website should have thrown the errors of the programming to the visitors? That's silly, you don't provide debug information to end users, you log the errors to an internal server. The website told you it was down and gave an error code so a person could call in and provide the error code. How is that crappy design?

If you think you can look at output from your browser and know what methodologies were used to build and deliver that page, then you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about client server applications.
1st of all, that's not completely true. A simple wget could likely download the site and you could look at much of the coding which is delivering the content to your browser. Heck, just using Firebug shows you the html, css and javascript which is being used to display the content.

2nd of all, and more importantly, YOU were the one who was criticizing the page. YOU were the one who is criticizing the programming and infrastructure, not me. So since you were the one who was criticizing it, despite what you're now saying you cannot know what the programming and infrastructure is, does that mean your last sentence applies to you?

Basically, you've just admitted what I originally suspected. You were injecting politics into an area that had nothing to do with it.
 
Sigh, I give a long and detailed logical explanation of why your argument is mistaken, and you resort to labeling it as just my opinion? Disappointing, to say the least.

Yes, you did give a rather longish for an average person description of your opinion. You did rationalize it very well. But med school is about money, and if you are poor you are not going.
 
Yes, you did give a rather longish for an average person description of your opinion. You did rationalize it very well. But med school is about money, and if you are poor you are not going.

That's not for money reasons. Its still $250k in debt unless you can afford to pay your way through med school. Which VERY few people do.
 
Hows that BAILOUT thing going.........You say that AIG is a success........LMAO!!!

Why is the criminal empire of Goldman Saks still around?

Strawman alert.
 
No, it does not. It tells you there were more visitors than it was prepared to handle. Given the fact it handled nearly 3 million people yesterday alone, that does not indicate poor infrastructure or programming, but rather a simple overload of visitors to a site which will likely never have to handle that large of a load ever again.

What?!

Are you telling me the website should have thrown the errors of the programming to the visitors? That's silly, you don't provide debug information to end users, you log the errors to an internal server. The website told you it was down and gave an error code so a person could call in and provide the error code. How is that crappy design?


1st of all, that's not completely true. A simple wget could likely download the site and you could look at much of the coding which is delivering the content to your browser. Heck, just using Firebug shows you the html, css and javascript which is being used to display the content.

2nd of all, and more importantly, YOU were the one who was criticizing the page. YOU were the one who is criticizing the programming and infrastructure, not me. So since you were the one who was criticizing it, despite what you're now saying you cannot know what the programming and infrastructure is, does that mean your last sentence applies to you?

Basically, you've just admitted what I originally suspected. You were injecting politics into an area that had nothing to do with it.

Clearly you've never worked in a competent IS/IT department. No one would with any competent experience in the private sector would consider that launch anything but an embarrassment.
 
Hows that BAILOUT thing going.........You say that AIG is a success........LMAO!!!

Why is the criminal empire of Goldman Saks still around?

I think you just posted this in the wrong thread to the wrong person because none of that makes any sense or is in line with this discussion.
 
Clearly you've never worked in a competent IS/IT department. No one would with any competent experience in the private sector would consider that launch anything but an embarrassment.
No, what's clear is you made a statement you cannot hope to defend, because you have absolutely no idea what happened. You criticized the programming and infrastructure, despite you also claiming you have no clue what the programming and infrastructure was (which is what I figured from the beginning).

You were making something political which wasn't.
 
No, what's clear is you made a statement you cannot hope to defend, because you have absolutely no idea what happened. You criticized the programming and infrastructure, despite you also claiming you have no clue what the programming and infrastructure was (which is what I figured from the beginning).

You were making something political which wasn't.

What's clear is that you are defending the indefensible. (and have zero experience in any competent IS/IT department engaged in rolling out products on a large scale). This was a huge flop. The software and infrastructure was clearly not up to snuff. Seriously... after working on several global rollouts of some very big IS projects for one of the biggest multi-national corporations on the planet, I can tell you that the level of failure here was spectacular. There's no other way to put it. It's not a "glitch" when the feckin' thing doesn't work at all. That's a bomb. When your users can't get to the point where they can even see the products because they can't complete a registration, it's an abject failure.

Since you don't want to take it from me, then take it from the horse's mouth:

By most accounts, Ohio’s new online marketplace for health insurance had a rough launch yesterday.

Federal officials attributed the delay in part to heavy Web traffic but also acknowledged problems with the security log-in process, which they said was fixed by the afternoon.

This was the one I took a look at personally. The web traffic caused delays getting into the registration system, but the actual log-in process was broken (read that to mean bad code that had to be corrected). This should have been caught in testing. There was no excuse for this.

Here's the full article on the debacle: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/10/01/Obamacare-marketplace-up-and-running.html
 
Last edited:
What's clear is that you are defending the indefensible.
I'm not defending, I'm pointing out your statement was political, not factual.

(and have zero experience in any competent IS/IT department engaged in rolling out products on a large scale). This was a huge flop. The software and infrastructure was clearly not up to snuff. Seriously... after working on several global rollouts of some very big IS projects for one of the biggest multi-national corporations on the planet, I can tell you that the level of failure here was spectacular. There's no other way to put it. It's not a "glitch" when the feckin' thing doesn't work at all. That's a bomb. When your users can't get to the point where they can even see the products because they can't complete a registration, it's an abject failure.
:lamo

You keep repeating the same things, and yet, you cannot tell me a single problem with the programming and infrastructure, indicating what you've already admitted, which is you have no idea what you're talking about. The only problem we can actually assume was an overload of visitors, and considering the fact this website will never again have to handle the load it took on in the first few hours yesterday, it's not surprising that happened. It was a major project provided to millions of people, and done so over a very short amount of time for the first time it was fully available.

You can repeat yourself over and over again, while never saying ANYTHING of any substance, but you have ZERO evidence to support your position. You're putting politics into something where it doesn't belong.
 
I'm not defending, I'm pointing out your statement was political, not factual.

:lamo

You keep repeating the same things, and yet, you cannot tell me a single problem with the programming and infrastructure, indicating what you've already admitted, which is you have no idea what you're talking about. The only problem we can actually assume was an overload of visitors, and considering the fact this website will never again have to handle the load it took on in the first few hours yesterday, it's not surprising that happened. It was a major project provided to millions of people, and done so over a very short amount of time for the first time it was fully available.

You can repeat yourself over and over again, while never saying ANYTHING of any substance, but you have ZERO evidence to support your position. You're putting politics into something where it doesn't belong.

The feds admitted that it was a problem with their registration software. I was right. You were wrong. If you're not man enough to admit it then that just means you're a typical lefty, so no harm/no foul.
 
Some of those large insurance company's will still sell insurance....just not on the exchange. Others are just waiting to see how well the exchange works.

Oh well, that isn't the fault of Obamacare. After all, its still a free market and companies can still make their own decisions where and how they market their products.

Cover California is the insurance exchange. Who else would you suggest advertise and establish which insurance companies are signed up or not?


I think I'll stick with an informed observation, rather than the opinion you offer that you believe to be true.

Thanks again.
 
I think I'll stick with an informed observation, rather than the opinion you offer that you believe to be true.

Thanks again.

You're most welcome. Although, it was my informed observation that your opinions weren't really that informed. Just sayin.
 
You're most welcome. Although, it was my informed observation that your opinions weren't really that informed. Just sayin.

I would imagine that from your perspective, they appeared that way.
 
I would imagine that from your perspective, they appeared that way.

Hmmm, is there a reason you're still responding to my posts? Gotta have the last word do ya? Alright, go ahead have the last word so you can stop wasting both our time.
 
Back
Top Bottom