Well, if asked by a pollster whether you favor or oppose the law, what would you answer?
The problem isn’t that Obamacare doesn’t go far enough, it’s that it goes in the wrong direction. It bakes the private insurers further into the system by making it compulsory to buy their product, when the goal of single payer is to get people to not buy their product.
Then it should be easy to show us one or two, shouldn’t it? :dubious:
No. :rolleyes:
… is nonsensical.
You’ve already been asked if you know of *anyone *who wants it to go farther thinks what we’ve gained should be repealed. Well, do you?
Not exactly. The goal is to provide universal coverage, as a basic right of citizenship, at the lowest cost and highest financial efficiency. The demonstrated evidence is that single payer is the way to do that. That it cuts out the insurance industry is merely a feature. Implementing it would, though, release all that entrepreneurial talent now hidden in the industry to go do actual useful things.
Another drawback of Obamacare, since you’re discussing them, is that it is dependent on website development contractors to do their damn jobs competently. The Medicare system, by contrast, is well-proven and ready to add more subscribers by the buttload. But none of that means Obamacare isn’t a great step forward, and a good interim step to making single payer essentially inevitable.
I already showed you one.
So, you’d tell the pollster that you favor it. But those other people who don’t think it goes far enough… they’re what? Stupid? Why are they saying they oppose it, but you’re not?
I don’t know what all those people who say they are “opposed” are thinking, other than what they say. I’m not a mind reader. All I know is that you don’t think it goes far enough, and yet you favor it. If there are significant numbers of posters here who think it doesn’t go far enough, and who would poll “opposed”, then we can ask them. But as it is, I only know how people answered the poll. And most of them answered “opposed”.
But here’s the thing. I’m opposed to it, but I don’t want it repealed. I recognize that we live in a democracy, and I’m willing to give it chance. I have doubts that it will work, long term, but if it does, then great! I’m not wedded to my position if the facts say I shouldn’t be.
Hows that for “context”?
Alternatively, it’s dependent on the administration picking contractors who will do so. I don’t know how your job works, but I would never been able to tell my boss that the contractor I picked didn’t do his job and that it’s not my fault. Would you be able to get away with that? Perhaps you work in a different environment than most of us do.
And if your boss told you to pick him a neurosurgeon, you would probably demur, yes? But if placed in the position of having to make such a decision, you would depend on the advice of someone you trust who does have such experience, yes? You wouldn’t shrug off the responsibility and pick someone at random, you would at least try to gain some advantage.
But nonetheless, you would be out of your depth, you would have to trust somebody else’s opinion and advice. That would have no bearing on your culpability here? Is responsibility an absolute, a binary, guilty/not guilty are the only options?
Obama’s economic team, with Summers on point, practically begged him to get a competent leadership team over the launch, people with the business experience and competencies for such a complex start-up. Because the people he had in place did NOT (per Summers and the gang). Obama knew better. This launch is the perfect example of why the nation’s chief executive ought to have–I know this is crazy–some sort of executive experience. The Executive Branch of the government is at its essence an administrative function. His job is to get shit done. He fucked this one up royally, and I don’t know why it would be a surprise. If we put him in charge of Apple, he’d be out of his depth as well, as would most of us. This shit is hard, and it would have had a better chance with someone who knew what he was doing. He doesn’t need to know how to code. He needs to know how to manage, how to assemble the proper team and hold them accountable. Clearly, he did not.
And to answer your question: Yes, I agree, he’d have done much better had he trusted the advice he got from Summers. But, again, he knew better.
One with the artificial, misleading, leading-to-falsehood two-answers-only structure that we’ve already discussed. Now try again.
Still wrong. :rolleyes: An honest, useful poll includes the “doesn’t go far enough” option that so mystifies you. One that doesn’t cannot be answered honestly and I would so state.
I have made it very clear that that is my position. Please make an effort here.
And that’s why you have to dismiss those dishonestly-constructed polls, instead of adopting their structural concept and making it your own.
So you don’t know of any? Yet you think they’re in the majority?
No, you know more than that. There are numerous other polls out there, many of which do have the not-far-enough option, and I already showed you the most recent prominent one. You are certainly not stuck with dishonest data.
Yet, if somebody else gave that as an answer in a poll structured in a way you oddly find useful, you’d interpret that answer as wanting it to be repealed, wouldn’t you? That’s just what you’ve been telling us here.
So, again, why should we not dismiss any simplistic binary question such as the one you’re demanding our answers to, and any alleged “data” resulting therefrom, as bullshit?
You know better than that.
Get out of here with your wild talk!
Regards,
Shodan
I know, I know, it’s crazy. I just can’t help myself sometimes!
As I said earlier, Obama has already taken responsibility for the fumble. His point person, Sebeleus, told us to blame her. Not sure why you aren’t willing to take them at their word. If not, you might consider asking yourself where the buck stops. As Stratocaster said, his job is to get this kind of shit done. And it wasn’t something someone else foisted upon him-- this is his baby. It’s got his name on it. Or it used to, before he decided he had a “branding” problem.
Elvis: I’m not going to continue this hijack anymore. This thread isn’t about whether Obamacare is popular or not. It’s about Obama’s poor execution of the web site. If you want to start a thread to discuss the law’s popularity, be my guest.
Happy Thanksgiving, folks. Hope your turkey is better than the turkey of a web site! 
Oh, and at least now Obama is bing up front with us about the Small Business web site, saying it’s going to be delayed a year. I don’t have so much of a problem if we’re told in advance about this stuff. But launching it and letting us find out the hard way is no way to run our Health Care business.
Another fortune cookie answer, Sam?
You’re supposed to add “in bed” afterwards.
Don’t seem as though you are eager to help anybody else, far as that goes.
But might one inquire as to the source of your comprehensive and detailed knowledge?
In all the analyses I’ve read, one points keeps coming up. It’s not that the program had bad leadership. It had NO leadership. THere was not one single individual whose responsibility it was to make this thing work. It’s like putting the symphony orchestra together and expecting them to play beautifully together without a conductor. It’s possible, but highly unlikely.
And you know that how? Aren’t you the guy who constantly asks people for their mind-reading credentials?
Are you asking for a cite that Obama ignored Summers’ advice? Sure, here ya go:
John:
Well, then, what is to be done? How about we stipulate all of this, how about if we have a special day of remembrance, say, November 13th, call it Obama Fucked Up Day. Not a holiday, just a day all workers work an extra shift for free in honor of our beloved job creators. Maybe close the emergency rooms on that day, to demonstrate our stern disapproval of sloth and dependence.
And then what? Go back to status quo ante? Withdraw that slender reed of hope we have extended? Was that state of affairs acceptable to you, John? You’ve read the stories, think they were lies? It was all made up, just to undermine our system? Partisan propaganda, was that it? Pretty sure that isn’t so. You?
So, what is to be done? For me, its hack our way through this Godforsaken mess, and get it working. Anything that can be built can be fixed. Do what it takes. I’m a radical, I’m relieved of any need to be coy, I have no non-partisan cred to protect.
You’re real big on stark binary choices lately, Lord alone knows why. OK, here’s yours: tear it all down, throw it away, never again elect anyone who isn’t competent in at least two programming languages (BASIC does not count!)? Or bull our way through this, set up a structure we can improve upon?
If not us, who? If not now, when? And if these people are not our people, who’s people are they?
Strato:
See? That wasn’t so hard, now was it?
Same question for you, what is to be done? Pretty sure I already know where you stand, but I’d be delighted to be wrong. Tear it all down, throw it away? Because what we had before was so gosh-darn wonderful? People are hurting, you know that, right? And if they are not ours to protect, then who’s people are they?
Tell you what, you get on board with fixing this thing and helping folks out, I’ll come down here every day for a month, roll around screaming about what a jerk Obama is.
Deal?
I’ve said multiple times on this MB that I think the website can and will be fixed.
I voted for Obama, and wouldn’t change my vote because of this issue. Again: I have every confidence that the web site can and will be fixed. But asked if Obama fucked this up, the answer is Yes. And as long as people in this thread keep insisting that the answer is No, then the debate will go on. You don’t have to participate if you don’t like it.
It’s not altogether different from the Benghazi threads. As long as people keep insisting that Obama fucked up by not sending in the marines, folks are going to keep showing them that they’re wrong.