Ah yes, I’m also aware of the Think Progress excusemaking piece, where they blame the insurance company for complying with the law. and then tell a bunch of lies about the company exiting the individual market because they want the sick patients to go to the other companies, even though ACA imposes costsharing, something you’d think the wonks at Think Progress would know. You know, if Think Progress wasn’t actually just the “Republicans say the darndest things” blog.
Oh. So howcum I provided the link, and you didn’t?
For the same reason I wouldn’t provide one if I told you there was a devastating storm that hit the Philippines.
I find that amusing. You point out that they have done something right at some point and may not be totally responsible for fucking up the whole ACA website. Congrats! I, personally, would be upset that a company that even has the stink of two huge failures on it would be involved in any way with the development of such an important interface.
My goodness. Aren’t you quick to hang your hat on the words “isn’t necessarily”. If it helps you sleep better at night who am I to argue. And you, the great defender of the free market, point out triumphantly that CGI’s stock is up! They must be doing something right! without pointing out that:
[/quote=Washington Post]
Because of how federal contracting works, it’s also unlikely that CGI will be less competitive on bids in the future.
[/quote]
Not quite. You can call or mail in an application but the information must be input into the online portal the exact same way an individual at home would apply.
Oddly enough, this particular rationale does not appear in the linked article. Wherever you got that, you didn’t get it from the linked article.
See, this is part of why we link stuff. A gesture of respect for the reader, we allow the reader to verify. A lot of us don’t follow up on links that way, because it is the accepted custom that none of us would stoop so low, so it isn’t necessary.
For instance, when John-Boy offers a cite, I needn’t check for accuracy. I have the confidence that it says what he tells me it says. You know, play hard, play fair, and win when you deserve it.
Others, I always check. Now, that is tiresome and tedious, especially for those of us with the good sense to be lazy.
This is somewhat different, since it is my cite. I expect the reader to believe that I have at least read my own cite. These are not intended to be a platform for creative interpretation, you are not obliged to improve them by your own additional input. Indeed, some of us who are aligned with a strict school of propriety would regard that as dishonest. This might be news to you, you may not have been advised.
So, if you would be so kind as to refrain? As much as I admire imagination and improvisation, there are contexts wherein that simply isn’t appropriate, not the done thing, you understand.
'K, tx, bye.
And so forth…
I don’t know that much about the company, CGI. I am simply pointing out that some context was overlooked, no doubt in complete innocence. I am perfectly capable of exaggeration, but restrain the impulse if for no other reason that it gets busted so very often.
However, if I rethink that position and require your assistance, I will advise soonest.
Well, that’s the difference between you and a politician. The politicians, specifically the President, lied about these facts to get the ACA passed.
New York already had guaranteed issue for insurance and California has more protections than HIPAA. If millions of uninsured who could not get coverage do sign up successfully then, yes, repeal will be a bad deal for them. The bigger problem for these people is what will happen if the millions who could afford insurance but choose not to get it, and the young and healthy folks who don’t want to spend so much on insurance, don’t sign up. The system will collapse under it’s own weight…no repeal necessary.
It remains to be seen that these people will receive affordable coverage. It also remains to be seen just how many people will be left uninsured even with ACA. It seems to be you are using best-case possible outcomes to defend the program. Bottom line is that we don’t know the full effect of this legislation yet. A lot more people may be hurt than helped by ACA.
Some context? Such as the fact that they have done something that has worked at least once. In your comic book world one must be good or evil. Somehow a mixed bag performance means the company is totally trustworthy and talking about any past problems must be balanced by talking about what they have done right as well as their stock price.
Does it not concern you in the least that this company was involved in two large failures for the Canadian government?
I think their stock price is suggestive but certainly not definitive. Our stock market is little more than a pari-mutual casino, investors bet that the price will rise, not that the company itself is worthy of long-term investment. I deplore that fact, but many people make quite a good living servicing that casino, and I see little prospect for change. So, such an observation* suggests* that CGI is worthy, but certainly does not prove it.
Overall, though, I am not quite clear on what you hope to insinuate. That CGI was obviously hopeless, feckless, and untrustworthy, and the Obamaviks simply drew their name out of a hat? CGI is a major contributor to the Democrat Party? CGI is a worthy and valid vendor for this sort of thing, but were simply overwhelmed by the complexity? If you offered more clarity on what theory you hope to advance, we might be more informed, might make a better judgement.
Is there some reason you cannot specify what your thesis is? I have a smattering of knowledge about databases, but do not offer myself as an expert qualified to render judgement. If you wish to present yourself as such an expert, perhaps we can have a quick glance at your boney fidos?
From here, it seems as though you want to suggest and imply any number of dreadful scenarios, without committing yourself to any specific accusation. May I suggest that if you were more clear about that, we might make a better assessment?
Not that you are obliged to do so, merely a suggestion. I doubt that my opinion weighs heavily on your mind, but perhaps the opinions of others, in the aggregate?
Suggestive of what? Here it is suggestive that even a colossal fuck-up won’t affect it’s future potential to score government contracts. Once again, from the Post piece:
I’m not trying to insinuate anything other that what the articles suggest. That you can’t see this or digest the information given is worrisome.
Finally got something right.
And yet, you take the trouble to argue with me. How very odd.
I wouldn’t want you to pollute the minds of other readers without being challenged. As to changing your mind? Couldn’t care less.
Bereft. Disconsolate. I only hope I can find the strength to go on.
I predict that this problem with ACA will take the republicans three years, two months and eight
(8) days to sort out: The 58th Presidential Inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, will be held on Friday, January 20, 2017.
The link works fine. Why is it there?
No repeal necessary? Do you mean that?
What happened to repeal and replace?
And what does collapse look like?
Suppose a year from now the reinsurance companies are, as your predictions would imply, indeed moaning about disaster unless the government bails them out again, or at least starts giving them a better idea of the ACA-related risks going forward. Now, by having, in 2013, emphasized the evils of someone losing their insurance, the GOP would be in a quite poor position to say the solution is to take away insurance from more people. Swing state GOP politicians can’t be be seen as opposing loss of health insurance except when it affects the working poor. So, despite kicking and screaming from the far right, the replacement would have to be even more financially responsible AKA closer to universal coverage. Here’s what all the kvetching about Obamacare could lead to:
All over the globe, other nations are staring at us with mouths agape, wondering why we can’t seem to fathom the bleeding obvious.
“What is wrong with those people?”
“They used to rule the world. It made them crazy.”
“Oh.”
Who cares? I sure don’t.
I do care that my health insurance cost is going up by $8,000 a year, and I do care that there is a new government program that will end up being the largest income redistribution and wealth siphon since we had the misfortune of having FDR in the White House.
But to get back to the OP’s question, nobody can seriously argue that Owebama didn’t lie to us - repeatedly and emphatically.
Okay then.
We’d love to hear the details of how ACA is resulting in you paying an additional $8000 per year. Can you elaborate?
No one can seriously talk to someone who says “Owebama”.