October 23, 2013
Solving the ObamCare Fiasco
Short of those living in a survivalist cave in Idaho, everyone is aware that the launch of ObamaCare has been less than sterling. The question is what to do about it?
Set the scene, a nationally televised Obama news conference to announce the President's solution. The TV broadcast opens with the cameras peering down a long red-carpeted hallway in the White House. After a pause of anticipation, the far doors open and President Obama strides confidently toward the golden dais. After surveying the assembled press corps and checking the teleprompter, he starts his comments.
"Thank you. As you know the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has not gone as smoothly as I expected. No one is madder than me that a Canadian contractor with a record of failures screwed up my website. This combined with the 16 day Republican shutdown of the government negated the four years we had to develop a workable system.
In search of a solution to this crisis before next year's election, I believe a bipartisan plan is needed so I have decided to go with a suggestion from a Republican blogger in Seattle. I am today appointing a person with a reputation as a problem solver, knowledgeable about providing health care and honest to a fault to head a Save My Health Care Commission. A man who needs no introduction, the savior of the Salt Lake Winter Olympics, the grandfather of ObamaCare, former Massachusetts's governor, Mitt Romney.
Mitt's task will be to conduct a performance audit and draft legislation to fix my health care plan. Congress will have to make a no amendments, up or down vote on the legislation. I want it on my desk by December 25, 2013 and I will sign it.
The beauty of this plan is if the Romney reforms work, I can take the credit. If they fail, I'll blame the Republicans.
I'll refer any questions to Governor Romney. Meanwhile, I have to go. Joe Biden and I have a tee time."
President Obama turns off the teleprompter, steps off the golden dais and walks back down the red-carpeted hallway once again above the fray, leading from behind.
Posted by warrenpeterson at October 23, 2013
11:07 AM | Email This
clear fog blog
1. The race is on for how to blame the Republicans for the failure of the Obamacare rollout. Leader so far is Juan Williams. "Obama couldn't delay the roll out beause the Republicans opposed Obamacare." Translation: Obama could not possibly consider an action that Republicans like. He and Sebelius were forced - forced! -to go ahead. And to lie that Obamacare.gov was ready.
2. The issue isn't one Mitt could fix, and most likely Mitt would make it worse. Mitt may be great at logistics and project management, but knows squat about software development. Now, if you suggested Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, or someone with complex software development management experience, your idea would make sense. Having 500 million lines of code means the contractors doing the development didn't know how to properly architect the solution. Who's to blaim is the contractors and contracting officials that selected the contractors and managed the contract.
Well, if you guys can still whine about the fictional "voter fraud" during the 2004 (!) governor's election here, I suppose you can still fantasize, after only a year, that Rmoney should have some Presidential powers. After all, you guys took what would have been a tough loss under any circumstances, and greatly exacerbated your pain via birtherism and false predictions of victory. We can understand the temptation to play make-believe when confronted with a reality you're not capable of accepting.
Do bear in mind it makes you look silly, though.
tensor: it's actually a fact there was voter fraud, and it's a fact that it was more than enough to make a difference in the election. I don't know what your complaint about that is. The part that isn't a fact is that the fraud would have
made a difference (statistically, it's not very likely).
Hell, the existence of voter fraud was asserted by Gregoire's camp, when they brought forward a handful of illegal voters to ask the judge to take their votes away. Of course, the judge never should have done that, since he had no admissable evidence for how they voted, but that there was voter fraud was part of the ruling, thanks to Gregoire.
What was that about make-believe?
Pudge@5 lies, "it's actually a fact there was voter fraud, and it's a fact that it was more than enough to make a difference in the election."
Only if you define a "fact" as "something idiots keep saying" and "actually a fact" as "something that actual idiots keep actually saying".
6. ... it's actually a fact there was voter fraud, and it's a fact that it was more than enough to make a difference in the election...
Voter fraud being a crime, you will of course cite the indictments brought, convictions obtained, and in which courts the trials took place.
For the 2004 governor's race in particular, you'll also have to explain why Judge Bridges ruled, "No evidence has been placed before the court of fraud."
Hell, the existence of voter fraud was asserted by Gregoire's camp, when they brought forward a handful of illegal voters to ask the judge to take their votes away.
When dealing with legal issues, please use precise terms. Persons not eligible to vote did indeed vote, but this was not fraud. And, the purpose of showing these ineligible votes going to Rossi or Bennet in precincts where the majority of legitimate ballots went to Gregoire was to invalidate the plaintiffs' claim that such ineligible votes should be subtracted in proportion to the eligible votes cast.
Of course, the judge never should have done that, since he had no admissable evidence for how they voted, but that there was voter fraud was part of the ruling, thanks to Gregoire.
You don't know the rules of evidence, you don't know the legal definition of voter fraud, and you don't know enough to stop proclaiming your ignorance of all of that, years and years after everything was decided by a judge the plaintiffs had sought.
Thank you for demonstrating nicely the point of my comment.
Please forgive me for coming back so soon, but I obviously forgot a very important appointment that MUST be added to the list. We need Obama to appoint a new person to head his Office of Legislative Affairs.
There is certainly no one more ... desirable for this than Teabagging heartthrob, master of winning legislative strategy and the anointed 'King of King's', King of the Seventh Mountain, Sen Ted Cruz (Douche-TX).
8. Mike, Warren's just being reasonable. After all, didn't President Cheney turn the Iraq war over to Hillary after it went bad?
Mitt? Really? That Massachusetts liberal put a government mandated health insurance program together by relying on massive amounts of "free" federal dollars to pay for it.
Just what do you think that liberal Romneycare can accomplish at the Federal Level? Rely on massive amounts of dollars printed from trees like Bernanke?
Pyramid schemes only work when you can get more people under you to pay you.....Romneycare managed to get the Feds to buy in, there is no place for the Federal Government to go, now, we the people, are at the bottom of the pyramid with no one to cover our costs.
10. Doug, why do you have so little confidence in America to think that we are incapable of providing basic healthcare for all our citizens?
tensor: Voter fraud being a crime, you will of course cite the indictments brought, convictions obtained, and in which courts the trials took place.
I never said they were charged, so, no. But we know illegal votes were cast. Bridges said up to 1600 or so illegal votes were cast, more than 10 times the difference between the two candidates. Illegal voting is voter fraud. I don't know why you are pretending otherwise.
Persons not eligible to vote did indeed vote
but this was not fraud.
the purpose of showing these ineligible votes going to Rossi or Bennet in precincts where the majority of legitimate ballots went to Gregoire was to invalidate the plaintiffs' claim that such ineligible votes should be subtracted in proportion to the eligible votes cast
Irrelevant. I agree that Rossi's claim was weak -- I predicted before the ruling that Rossi would lose, for the reasons Bridges outlined -- but the evidence of how the felons voted was clearly insufficient. You cannot take someone's mere word -- let alone a convicted felon's! -- as evidence for how that someone voted, and then change the outcome of the election (in terms of numbers of votes, or anything else) based on that "evidence."
There is literally zero reason to think that these felons didn't vote for Gregoire, and in taking away votes from Rossi, they may not have merely voted once for Gregoire, but, in effect, twice. You need a much higher standard of proof than the word of a felon to change the outcome when the risk of getting it wrong is taking away the right to vote of a lawful voter. That was clearly an error by the court.
You don't know the rules of evidence
you don't know the legal definition of voter fraud
and you don't know enough to stop proclaiming your ignorance of all of that, years and years after everything was decided by a judge the plaintiffs had sought.
Again, I agreed with the court's ruling, except for the matter of removing votes from Rossi based on clearly insufficient evidence.
Thank you for demonstrating nicely the point of my comment.
You're the one showing your ignorance. Shrug.
tensor: One more thing. Both you and Steve produce quotes I cannot find in the record. Nothing in the oral decision
implies that there was no evidence of fraud generally: he is speaking in specific contexts each time.
The one time he uses the term "fraud" in reference to illegal voters -- which he does, contrary to your implication -- he specifically references a law about illegal voting, and explicitly refers to it as fraud: The Court concludes that, having neither pled nor disclosed, pursuant to RCW 29A.68.100 ... fraud cannot now be claimed and that to the extent that it was claimed, neither the act of fraud nor the causation arising therefrom were proved by the higher burden of proof of clear, cogent and convincing.
His point was that a. they didn't include this in the petition so it cannot be part of the ruling, and b. the evidence of whom the illegal votes were cast for didn't exist, so therefore cannot be included as part of the ruling. I maintain he misspoke: he claimed, "Based on the findings, the Court concludes that 1,678 illegal votes were cast in the 2004 general election." That is 1,678 instances of fraud, by his own admission, since he said that RCW 29A.68.100 is about fraud, and RCW 29A.68.100 is about those very 1,678 votes. Therefore, he concluded there was fraud. But his point was that no evidence of fraud specific to one side or the other existed, sufficient to contest the election.
By saying there were 1,678 illegal votes, he was saying there was voter fraud.
Steve: Simply put, Judge Bridges "found no evidence of partisan bias or fraud".
And I agree with that. I agreed with it before the ruling came out. Nothing I said here disagrees with that, in any way.
Are you a real, actual, doctor? It's hard to believe someone gave you a degree of any kind, because you really are very very dim.
Bruce: Pudge@5 lies
Demonstrate it. You'd have to show that 1,678 is not more than 133 (or that 1,673 is not more than 129), or that people voting illegally is not voter fraud. And not merely that it doesn't meet the legal definition, but that it doens't meant the colloquial definition, since no one was talking about legal definitions, but the context was, rather, what people "whine" about.
So, go ahead. Demonstrate any of that is false, let alone that I "lied."
Doug, why do you have so little confidence in America to think that we are incapable of providing basic healthcare for all our citizens?
You have it backward. YOU are the one saying that Americans are so incapable of providing for themselves and each other that they must be literally forced to do so. It's the liberals who have no confidence in America, that they toss away the protections of individual rights to save us, that they applaud when the Supreme Court says that there's such a thing as too much free speech, and that it should be restricted, or that the government should have nearly unfettered authority to require us to do anything at all so long as it can have a tax stuck on it.
Liberals have no confidence in America. They believe in oligarchies with absolute power that will keep America under their thumbs.
14. And not merely that it doesn't meet the legal definition, but that it doens't meant the colloquial definition, since no one was talking about legal definitions, but the context was, rather, what people "whine" about.
In other words, amateur legal scholar pudge doesn't care about legal definitions when discussing alleged crimes. It's fraud if he says it's fraud!
Thanks for sharing that with us, pudge.
15. Or maybe you were just lying your ass off again. It's hard to tell with you.
No, it isn't.
pudge is a fellow who's clearly overly impressed with his own intellect. Sorta reminds me of this guy:
Just to be clear, I'm referring to the bald, pudgy one...
"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect...:
Bruce: "why do you have so little confidence in America to think that we are incapable of providing basic healthcare for all our citizens?"
This is a very long discussion that we won't be able to finish. However to start it off, you will first have to define 'basic healthcare'.
For example, does 'basic healthcare' include free breast feeding supplies for 90-year old women? Does 'basic healthcare' include prostrate cancer screening for four-year old boys? Does 'basic healthcare' include annual breast cancer screening for women over 25? Of course I could list 10,000 things here that Obamneycare touches on.
And to answer my question for you, I would think 'basic healthcare' does not include the first two (though Obamneycare does), and should more likely include the latter (which Obamneycare doesn't).
Of course, the most important part of your question that we would have to examine is the idea that Obamneycare provides 'basic healthcare'. We would have to examine whether or not Obamneycare actually decreases the amount of healthcare services available than if it wasn't there. We would have to examine whether requiring folks to go great distances to get to a healthcare service that is in their service now that Obamneycare doesn't allow them to keep their doctor is a factor in 'basic healthcare' providence.
etc. etc. Including whether or not forcing 10's of MILLIONS of people in our country to pay thousands of more dollars for insurance that they would rather not have has an effect on whether they can afford to pay for 'basic healthcare' such as vitamin supplements, aspirin, other over the counter medicines, bandaids, etc.
Bruce@13: "why do you have so little confidence in America to think that we are incapable of providing basic healthcare for all our citizens?"
I guess to get directly to the point: The Democrat controlled House, Senate and Presidency, spent years and what will amount to trillions of dollars, trying to do what you think they are capable of doing....
The end result is that they failed and will fail to 'provide basic healthcare for all our citizens' but instead will provide a means for some type of 'insurance' to most of our citizens.
Now, if they would have worked on providing 'basic healthcare', that is making it cheaper and easier and more profitable for people to provide 'basic healthcare' then the end result would have been that they could have provided basic healthcare for all it's citizens.
Insead they have done the opposite, including making it more costly and less profitable to provide healthcare.
Even the Democrat's economic hero knows that to lower costs you have to increase supply. Increase the supply of healthcare dramatically and it becomes more affordable. Decrease the supply of 'basic healthcare' while increasing the demand, and it doesn't.
I guess we can get to 'basic healthcare' for all, but it can't be done while democrats are making the laws.
19. I get it, but I'd say that Pudge will sometimes unwittingly spew his ignorance as fact.
I mostly agree with that. I dispute "sometimes".
20. I realize it can be irritating when someone is always right (both ways) but learn and run with it. :)
Doug, you make some good points but there are a few flaws in your reasoning.
- It doesn't matter that "breast feeding supplies for 90-year old women" and similar things are included in Obamacare. That won't cost anything or affect insurance premiums, just as I won't spend money on heart surgery if I don't have heart disease. But you are right that we need to more narrowly define "basic healthcare" to services that meet some cost/benefit threshold. Unfortunately, neither political party is willing to be honest about that. (E.g., the Republicans screamed about "death panels".)
- Yes, Obamacare "failed and will fail to provide basic healthcare for all our citizens", but it will come much closer than what we had before. We live in an imperfect world. But if you are saying you would prefer a single payer system that didn't involve private insurance companies, I'm with you.
- No economist, R or D, "knows that to lower costs you have to increase supply". All other things being equal, increasing supply is usually one way to lower costs, and I agree we should do it with healthcare. But many other factors affect costs as well.
And now back to the topic at hand. No, the ACA rollout has not gone well. And many experts are saying it might never go well and may even need to be scrapped and started anew. $600+ million for starting over? Wow, I bet Amazon could build some pretty amazing and reliable new sites for $634 million. Why did we go with a Canadian contractor with a sketchy record instead of just calling on great technology companies in the Puget Sound? Amazon with their AWS services? Microsoft? Seattle / WA legislators? Anyone? Hello? Is anyone steering this ship?
If you listen to Harry Reid, that was the expectation from the get-go. That this would not go well, and would lead to an excuse for an outright socialist single payer system.
Quotes from Reid:
"'What we've done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we're far from having something that's going to work forever,' Reid said. When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: 'Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.'... Reid then cited the post-WWII auto industry labor negotiations that made employer-backed health insurance the norm, remarking that "we've never been able to work our way out of that"
Pretty cynical and malicious way to go about that goal, and worse simply inefficient. Crush private insurance in the process, and force uncertainty and higher health costs on most Americans, regardless of their own personal health behaviors. Not well thought out. But to be expected from Democrats who want what is best for ideology and not what is best for actual health outcomes.
Remember, the President said that we would be able to keep our health plans and doctors, and that most families would see reductions in cost of $2500 a year.
No wonder Americans' view of our leadership is polling at all time lows.
23. Steve@26, I would hesitate to play armchair psychologist and diagnose pudge with acute narcissism. The only things he can obviously be dignosed with are acute assholism and shades-of-gray-blindness. The latter is common in small children although the former is, fortunately, more rare. Still, I would hesitate to sentence any doctoral student to writing a thesis about pudge.
Leftover@28, without question the software interface to ACA has been badly managed. This is a relatively minor nit in the grand scheme of things but is a big problem at the moment and there is no excuse for it. Nonetheless, I don't think any of the companies you mention provide services like this.
You are, intentionally or not, misinterpreting Harry Reid's statements. He was saying what many liberal have consistently said: single payer would be a better solution but it's not politically realistic now, so let's do the best we can in the current political environment (i.e., the approach that the Republican party initially championed), which is better than our previous healthcare system.
scottd: pudge doesn't care about legal definitions when discussing alleged crimes.
I was discussing no such thing.
It's fraud if he says it's fraud!
Of course, the Judge said voting illegally is fraud, but hey, who's counting?
pudge is a fellow who's clearly overly impressed with his own intellect.
No, I am simply someone who can read and report facts. If you have a problem with what I say, argue against it. You can't, though, so you pretend that ad hominems make your case. They don't.
Steve: You have to prove that people voting illegally was a fraudulant act because the two are distinctly different.
The Judge called it fraud to vote illegally. That really happened. I cited it. Again: The Court concludes that, having neither pled nor disclosed, pursuant to RCW 29A.68.100 ... fraud cannot now be claimed and that to the extent that it was claimed, neither the act of fraud nor the causation arising therefrom were proved by the higher burden of proof of clear, cogent and convincing. That means that he was calling mere illegal votes (what RCW 29A.68.100 refers to) "fraud." And he wasn't speaking in colloquial context, as I was.
You started out with, "it's actually a fact there was voter fraud".
Yes. How does that argue that I was using a legal definition? You really are stupid. I mean, seriously. It's like saying you can prove I was lying when I said the sky is blue, because grass is green.
you ignorantly stated an opinion as fact
I stated a fact as a fact. There was significant voter fraud. Whether it meets a legal definition is beside any point I was making, as it was unrelated to the context.
This shouldn't be this hard for a doctor to understand.
Compared to you, not even close. My goodness, you're by far the biggest narcissist around here. I simply make good arguments. You have to beat down everyone whom you think challenges your imagined superiority.
he vehemently and erroneously expresses his own opinions as fact and opposing opinions as lies
Please stop lying. Thanks!
In recent posts we've seen him tell us that Judge Bridges is wrong, Pudge is right. The state Supreme court is wrong, Pudge is right. The United States Supreme Court is wrong, Pudge is right. The health care facility code development process is wrong, Pudge is right. These are not stated as opinions, as in, "it is my opinion that they are wrong", but as facts.
When they say incorrect things, yes. If you have an argument against me, present it. But if I identify ways in which they were factually incorrect, unless you demonstrate it is not a fact ... you have no case. Will you please, for once, be rational?
If one states an opposing opinion he calls you a liar.
You're lying. I never do that.
Restate your opinion in a thread that Pudge controls, that is, try to converse and debate, and he'll call you abusive and then ban you from commenting.
Yes, continually lying in a discussion is abuse. This isn't controversial, except among people who want to be abusive.
It is my opinion that his is behavior born of acute, maniacal narcissism
You're lying. That cannot possibly be your opinion, if you actually are a doctor. It's far too stupid, even for you.
26. I would hesitate to play armchair psychologist and diagnose pudge with acute narcissism.
Are you still sure about that, Bruce?
27. Pudge has invented a fun game. He can call something "fraud", and if you show it doesn't meet a particular definition of fraud -- hell, any definition -- he will just say "well, that's the wrong definition". And of course if you show that some authority (e.g., the Supreme Court) disagrees with him, he will just say they're wrong. In the end, he implies, everyone gets to decide what every word means and call anything a "fact" and anyone who disagrees a "liar". Of course, if you disagree with him and can't "prove" it using his "facts" and "definitions", then he will deem you forever unfit to grace his scholarly comment threads with your words.
Steve: I've found that it's not productive to argue with pudge for pretty much the same reason it's a waste of time to argue with a drunk or a five-year-old. Mockery seems more appropriate, but I usually try to keep it short and then move on to more productive activity.
pudge usually views that as "winning" his argument. I know that's important to him and it serves my purpose, too. Whether or not pudge ever figures out that he's the butt of the joke doesn't matter to me.
Dr Steve and other responding to Pudge:
Dr. Steve -- funny how you bring up the narcissist label. I pointed that out to Pudge a few years back and he didn't take kindly to it then either.
It is funny how when Pudge doesn't control the post, he is exposed to the "fraud" (sarcasm flag -- if you don't get it Pudge) that he is. He talks a good game, but as Dr. Steve points out they are just opinions. Pudge is welcome to his opinions and worldview. It is too bad he doesn't accept that people can have different opinions and don't see the world as he sees it. They aren't wrong or liars. They just see the situation differently. In normal course of life, this diverse thinking is good and helps bring out all points of view so they can be equally weighed. In Pudge's world, however, on his posts, this no longer is possible. I do say it is good to see Pudge comments on other peoples post. Maybe he will begin to see the cocoon he lives in. My hope is that he will begin to see that he doesn't always have to be right, get the last word in, and recognizes that others do have different opinions and he shouldn't just try to bully his way in the argument. As Stephen Covey put it, his habit 5 is "Seek First to Understand, and then to be understood." If only Pudge would take this approach. Here's dreaming.
30. Hmmmm, very interesting. Did I once mention therein that I was referring to 'Pudge'?
Smacks similar of 'well that's enough talk about me, let's talk about you - and what you think of me'. Unreal! :)
scottd: pudge usually views that as "winning" his argument.
Most people recognize that when you cannot respond to my points and instead resort to mockery, that you are conceding the argument. Yes. This is not exceptional and has nothing directly to do with me.
I know that's important to him
... and it serves my purpose, too.
It's sad that you think making yourself look bad serves your purposes.
Whether or not pudge ever figures out that he's the butt of the joke doesn't matter to me.
I am well aware that you want people to think that, because it's the only way you know how to actually try to salvage the incident and save face. I hope that's working out for you ...
Bruce: The only things he can obviously be dignosed with are acute assholism and shades-of-gray-blindness.
I am not an asshole, I'm a dick. See Team America if you don't get the difference. Steve is the major asshole here.
And I am not blind to shades of gray. You only think that because you think I am wrong. But it's irrational to assert that I can't see shades of gray that you cannot demonstrate exist.
He can call something "fraud", and if you show it doesn't meet a particular definition of fraud -- hell, any definition -- he will just say "well, that's the wrong definition".
Well, yes, if you try to make up a definition for me, and it does not match my actual definition, then yours will be wrong. But I never said that the supposed legal definitions (that were never presented) were wrong, I just said they were different from how I was using it. As usual, you're just making shit up, Bruce.
And of course if you show that some authority (e.g., the Supreme Court) disagrees with him, he will just say they're wrong.
Um. That's never happened. Again, you're just making shit up. Yes, I've disagreed with the Supreme Court's reasoning, and said they are wrong. But they are not an actual authority. They are an authority only on what their rulings are, not whether their rulings are correct. As Justice Frankfurter said, the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution, not what the Court has said about it.
I have zero problem with pointing out the fact that five justices agreed that the Congress has no authority to require people to buy health insurance (a different five ruled that the Congress has authority to tax us if we don't, which isn't the same thing), and yet they let stand a law that does precisely that, and saying that therefore the Court is wrong. This is extremely simple logic.
Of course I can say the Court is wrong, when it clearly is, and when I can back it up. What's wrong with that?
In the end, he implies, everyone gets to decide what every word means
Well, it's a simple fact of language that everyone does decide what every word means. That's how language literally works.
... and call anything a "fact" ...
... and anyone who disagrees a "liar".
When they are habitually dishonestly making things up, yes, I call them liars. What's the problem with that?
Of course, if you disagree with him and can't "prove" it using his "facts" and "definitions", then he will deem you forever unfit to grace his scholarly comment threads with your words.
Steve: Like Pudge, you pay no heed to where your ideas lead.
You're a liar.
You're lying again.
You're a liar.
It never ends, does it?
No, you are very persistent.
There were illegal votes - that we all know - but "neither the act of fraud nor the causation arising therefrom were proved".
Yes. And? My very clear point is that Bridges put this type of illegal voting -- e.g., the mere fact of a felon voting illegally -- into the category of "fraud" by even making the claim with that RCW citation. How are you not getting this?
Illegal votes do not equate to fraudulent votes.
Colloquially -- how I was speaking at the beginning -- yes, they do. And Bridges clearly claimed that RCW 29A.68.100, which is only about illegal votes, including the mere fact of felons voting illegally, constitutes "fraud." That's what he said.
Not that it matters, neither your misquote of Bridges, nor your quote of a law that didn't mention "fraud" to prove what "fraud" is, because I wasn't speaking in legal terms.
... just like your tiny little mind.
Stop lying about it.
You're a liar.
Rossi lost fair and square. Get over it.
I am over it. I was over it before Bridges ruled, because I knew how he would rule, because it was clear there was no way for him to overturn the result based on the lack of evidence. But no, he likely didn't "lose fair and square." It is highly likely there was election fraud by officials, and Bridges never asserted otherwise. He just noted that it couldn't be proven. But the "fraud" he referred to regarding the illegal votes was proven ... but there was no reasonable recourse for it.
OMG! Nothing weird about that exchange. Too funny!
It's funny you're so un-intellectual, yes. What you referred to in the first quote was me saying someone was lying for presenting an opinion. I didn't do that in the second quote: I said you are lying that it is your opinion. An intellectual person immediately sees the distinction. Maybe you are stupid enough to actually hold that opinion, but I give you the benefit of the doubt and assert that you're lying, instead.
Steve: No, he didn't.
I quoted it. You refute it. Shrug.
tc: I pointed that out to Pudge a few years back and he didn't take kindly to it then either.
Yes, because like Steve, you confuse presenting arguments with something else.
It is funny how when Pudge doesn't control the post, he is exposed to the "fraud" (sarcasm flag -- if you don't get it Pudge) that he is.
He talks a good game, but as Dr. Steve points out they are just opinions.
he doesn't accept that people can have different opinions and don't see the world as he sees it
You're a liar.
The bizarre thing is I am many many times more accepting of differing views than any the liberals in this discussion, especially Steve. But while I am accepting of diversity of thought -- indeed, I actively encourage it -- I also demand rigorous arguments, and I reject outright lying, such as your lie about me here.
In normal course of life, this diverse thinking is good and helps bring out all points of view so they can be equally weighed.
Yes, which is why I encourage diversity of thought.
In Pudge's world, however, on his posts, this no longer is possible.
You're a liar, tc. And I know you're not very smart, but you know this: when you simply disagree with me, I don't have a single problem with you. It's only when you make up lies about me and the facts that I have a problem with you. And some liberals are not banned, like demo kid, because he generally knows that if he keeps it about the arguments, and if he is honest, there's no problem. Bruce used to know that, but at some point he gave up trying and just started resorting to lies. Steve has never figured it out. tensor knows it, but never cared.
the cocoon he lives in.
My hope is that he will begin to see that he doesn't always have to be right, get the last word in, and recognizes that others do have different opinions and he shouldn't just try to bully his way in the argument.
You're lying: I have no such belief that I always have to be right, or get the last word in, and I readily and actively encourage different and opposing opinions.
But it is also true that I am usually right -- in part because I am smart, but also because I generally don't offer my views unless they are well-established based on the evidence -- and that while I do not bully generally, I do bully people who are bullies. And I have no problem with that. Steve is the obvious example: he knows nothing but bullying, so I am the bigger bully (which isn't hard, he's pretty pathetic).
As Stephen Covey put it, his habit 5 is "Seek First to Understand, and then to be understood." If only Pudge would take this approach.
You're lying that I don't. You are the one who needs to take this advice.
There's really not much use arguing about the Rossi trial, yes the judge was bad, but the real blame has to fall squarely on the University of Washington. Those statistics 'professors' that testified should have been thrown out of the University for their disgustingly lying use of statistics. Having taken statistic courses at the U, I was completely embarrassed by their testimony.
To this day I feel far more contempt for my alma mater than I do for Gregoire or even the judge in that case.
Perchance was it that year, after the trial, that the University finally dropped off the radar as one of the country's best Universities? I know if I was rating them, they would have been disqualified just from the actions of those statistics professors.
37. Mitt may be great at logistics and project management, but knows squat about software development.
He doesn't have to know software development, any more than Sec Sibelius and Pres Obama did. But he does know project management, which neither of them do. He identifies the heads of departments, finds their completion status, asks what they need for resources and estimated time to completion, and issues his first candid PUBLIC status and progress report. Those department heads specifically will include those at HHS who were given responsibility for 'coordination' of all the dozens of separate projects, and they will be held responsible for the progress of their subordinates and their subcontractors. Needless to say, the Governor will require from the President the power to terminate non-performing managers and department heads, and promote their successors.
The candid PUBLIC status and progress reports will continue to be issued weekly until substantial completion of the project, the triumphal handover to the President, and the resumption on the blackout of public information on the management of HHS and Obamacare.
This is all progressing as planned by Jarrett, Axelrod and the politboro. Obamacare is the Trojan Horse for single payer in their minds. The only deterrent to this is if we get a GOP president for starters. A GOP majority in the Senate and the House would help turn the tables starting in 2015.
Obama will not fire Sebellius and the GOP should not demand it either - let them swill their own vomit. Let the loony leftists overreach so maybe those who are fixated on their smart phones will pay enough attention to see that Ben Carson was on to something when he said "Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery".
While Obama would rather have single payer, it could well be that more Democrats would rather not have it. The Democrats were so disengaged from understanding what was in Obamacare that many of them were aghast when they found out what the law meant. For that reason alone, many of them should be voted out of office in 2014. The Republican leadership needs to change, or else they will stay the minority party. McConnell and Boehner need to be retired or step down in favor of leaders who are more articulate and have more of a fighting spirit. The state of union is butt ugly at best...
If Harry Reid stays the majority leader of the Senate, the Democrats will continue to try and run roughshod over the Constitution and pass more crap sandwich legislation in favor of bloated government and statism. If Ted Cruz is the devil - according to MSNBC, he must be doing something effective and is getting the left's goat. He is the antidote for the President - Barack Sharpton, the Obamanation.
Steve: I already did.
False. You simply quoted it. You didn't actually refute it.
The problem is, you never proved it.
Shrug. I clearly stated an argument, with evidentiary support, that you have yet to provide any evidence against.
Rather, you provided the quote that proves that you're lying.
False, and I already clearly explained why ... and you didn't even attempt to refute it.
You're over the edge this time.
If you could provide any argument against what I wrote, you'd have more credibility.
Fascinating. Ever since I was a grade school kid I was one to walk across the playground and deck a bully.
That explains a lot. You pathologically see bullies even where they don't exist, and try to out-bully them before they get a chance to bully you or someone else.
The reason I started posting at HA was that I was sicked and tired of the left being bullied by the right.
Exactly: you're completely delusional and have no sense of self-awareness. You don't see the fact that you do more bullying than anyone in your holy crusade to get those bullies!
You're so-called beliefs are most probably delusions
You're a liar. You have no evidence of this, you simply have a reckless disregard for the truth, and you throw out claims like this as though they are in any way reasonable. Because you're a liar. And a bully, of course.
Who and what you really are is acted out against your will
You're a liar.
illusions have a lousy future
And a lousy present. It never stopped you, though.
tc posts some great, well thought out comments and his views seem to be uniquely his own
Yes, he does. Nothing I said disagrees with this.
... not some regurgitation of something he read or heard somewhere.
You appear to be implying I do this. If so, you're lying, of course. Even my harshest leftwing critics here know well that I think for myself, even if they disagree with me or my methods of communication. You're just showing yourself to be more dishonest.
My God, he's sliced and diced you, Pudge, and you don't even seem to be aware that it's happening. Death from a thousand cuts. tc is pretty good at that.
Well, no, he's not, because he makes far too many false claims when he tries, as I clearly pointed out, and as you are incapable of rebutting.
You have a very serious problem, Steve: you think that arguments you dislike don't actually exist if you don't address them. It's completely delusional.
I know software development, very well.
They could not pay me enough to come help them, even if I believed in their cause, because the cause is lost. The system is an absolute mess, and is doomed to failure without a rewrite from all the reports out there. They simply designed it poorly from the start.
OK, if I believed in their cause, I might be able to be convinced, for a lot of money (probably more than they are willing to give me: I'd ask for at least $300K salary ... or maybe that's normal for government, I dunno). I'm sure we could come up with some solutions in the "short" term (meaning at least a couple of months), if we could work out the huge legal violations (HIPAA) of the systems. There is an extremely remote possibility we could get something done before Dec. 15, which is the deadline before Obama is tax-penalizing people who were incapable of signing up for insurance.
But as I want it to fail, because it is the tool of the violation of our rights -- the electronic seeds of slavery -- they could not pay me enough. Millions wouldn't be enough.
@51, What reports?
You know I don't doubt there are bugs, but the system is working. Additionally the state systems like Washington's are working.
Rewrite? You know software?
Look, if it didn't work at all one would maybe consider a rewrite. But if you actually knew software and system development you'd understand this buggy system is just another patch and fix exercise.
Everything I've read shows one significant flaw -requiring authentification at the front of the process. Dumb, but there are 3 well known quick fixes to that stupid design pattern.
Rewrite? You're nuts. And anybody who sat in a triage meeting calling for a rewrite would be shown the door. Don't worry. Nobody will be calling you for advice.
43. I know software development, very well.
Oh, aren't you so very special...
But I guess Obama can just hold onto his millions, 'cuz no way is pudge going to save him!
"Everything I've read shows one significant flaw -requiring authentification at the front of the process. Dumb, but there are 3 well known quick fixes to that stupid design pattern."
You have failed to explain the 'one significant flaw'....here, let me help you:
It is not that flaw that is the problem, the flaw is that Obama is demanding that authentication is required at the front of the process.
Your three fixes do NOT solve the actual flaw.
Obama is trying to hide something so the actual fixes will be either to get him not to want to hide something (like WA state's website accomplishes), or else a fix that allows him to find another way to deceive the browser (like the newest 'fix' that let's you see what your cost will be based on your age...if you are 49, then it will show you the cost of a 27 year old, if you are 61 it shows you the cost of a 50 year old).
Legal scholar, software expert, published author, composer -- plus he has a beard!
pudge is clearly the Most Interesting Man In The World!
@51 pudge on October 24, 2013 10:17 PM,
I know software development, very well. ...The system is an absolute mess, and is doomed to failure without a rewrite
Are you lying? Because Zients: HealthCare.gov's problems will be fixed in a month. Zients goes on to say "There's a punch list of fixes, and we're going to punch them out one by one."
That doesn't sound like a "rewrite", does it?
Sure sounds like what William @52 said.
Guess we'll know who really knows about software by the end of November.
ps. I still think you are the ideal candidate for Supreme Court Justice in Warren's fantasy world.
We just should get our popcorn and enjoy the fire.
Obamacare is settled law, let it become the law of the land. The masses will decree Obama the Emperor of all things good and the GOP will disappear.
The D's sold us this Turd, it is their job to clean up afterwards.
Insufficiently Sensitive, thank you for validating my point, @4, about you right-wingers and your fantasies:
"... [Ronmey] does know project management, which neither of them do. He identifies the heads of departments, finds their completion status, asks what they need for resources and estimated time to completion, and issues his first candid PUBLIC status and progress report. Those department heads specifically will include those at HHS who were given responsibility for 'coordination' of all the dozens of separate projects, and they will be held responsible for the progress of their subordinates and their subcontractors. Needless to say, the Governor [Romney] will require from the President the power to terminate non-performing managers and department heads, and promote their successors."
Now, what actually happened when the Rmoney campaign built a custom web site for the use of just 30,000 dedicated campaign volunteers?
"So, the end result was that 30,000+ of the most active and fired-up volunteers were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity's sake.
The bitter irony of this entire endeavor was that a supposedly small government candidate gutted the local structure of GOTV efforts in favor of a centralized, faceless organization in a far off place (in this case, their Boston headquarters). Wrap your head around that." (H/t MikeBoyScout)
How to solve the "Obamcare" fiasco?
I say, start implementing the ideas in 1970s dystopian sci-fi movies. My favorite?
Thanks again to all the folks here, especially pudge, who put so much effort into validating my statements, @4, above. Just a few points to clarify, though:
-- I did indeed mean. "voter fraud" in the legal sense of that term;
-- Judge Bridges, in his ruling, pounds home his point about allegations of said fraud:
"During the 2004 general election, the various polling sites across the State were populated by inspectors, judges, Accuvote judges, observers, attorneys and the media. No testimony has been placed before the Court to suggest fraud or intentional misconduct. Election officials attempted to perform their responsibilities in a fair and impartial manner. There is no evidence before the Court to question ballot security as to those ballots actually counted."
-- The case was dismissed, with prejudice, and no appeal was filed. Therefore, Judge Bridges' ruling, complete with his finding, "No testimony has been placed before the Court to suggest fraud or intentional misconduct.", will forever stand as legal fact in our state. Statements to the contrary -- especially denials that felons voted for the Relublican and Libertarian candidates -- are from The Land of Make-Believe.
@65 tensor on October 25, 2013 04:27 PM,
Wait. Does this mean we're done arguing over an election that occurred 9 years ago, was contested and decided in a court of law and the decision never appealed by the guy who not only lost the election in 2004, but went on to lose again in 2012?
In keeping with Warren's fantasy, I think that the only fair thing would be if Inslee appointed Rossi in charge of everything.
What does the guy who really knows software think?
Will pudge tell us if we give him 1 Million Dollars?
Tensor@61 points out the absurdity of Warren's proposal that the Obamacare technical effort be "fixed" by the person who ran a disastrous re-election technical effort.
But Warren has proposed far more than that. He's proposed that, because the software got messed up, Romney should be given unilateral power to "draft legislation" to change the entire focus of healthcare policy as he sees fit because of ... well, his mandate as a loser, I suppose.
Warren calls his writing "clear fog blog" but this week his ideas, like our local weather, have been more fog than clarity.
"Wait. Does this mean we're done arguing... ?"
What part of "pudge" did you not understand? :-)
Bruce -- one of the major fantasies around here is that Real Strong Men can set everything right by the force of will alone, and so daddy-figures like Rossi and Rmoney get idolized. That these authority figures might be useless, incompetent, or worse never gets recognized. In fact, Obama out-performed Rmoney in the basic tasks of running an organization properly:
"In the days since the election we have learned that President Barack Obama's campaign had an amazingly advanced and disciplined ground game that knew just what precincts and even voters to target and how to target them, based on polling information that predicted how the vote was going with uncanny precision. Yet Mitt Romney was the man running as the experienced manager, the man whose years running a business uniquely qualified him to run the biggest, most complex organization on earth, the federal government. That was his main, most consistent claim to the office. Now it looks more as if, though he may have been very good at buying and selling companies and extracting profit from them, he wasn't nearly as good at heading an effective complex organization as President Obama."
(Again, hat-tip to MikeBoyScout.) That's from Forbes magazine. Ouch.
Says Tensor: Now, what actually happened when the Rmoney campaign built a custom web site for the use of just 30,000 dedicated campaign volunteers? "So, the end result was that 30,000+ of the most active and fired-up volunteers were wandering around confused and frustrated...
Bad analogy. The head of Romney's software development team was apparently a klutz, but it was not Mitt Romney, who had a different role to play. Political campaigns are what Obama's good at, not managing and governing. Romney, had he had 3-1/2 years to put out a product with his name at the top of it, would had something functional to show at the end of that epoch. His track record at the Olympics is a good enough indicator.
Insufficient@69 admits, "The head of Romney's software development team was apparently a klutz, but it was not Mitt Romney...
Who hired this klutz? Who do you propose hire the healthcare development managers? Or do you think Romney could manage a huge software project himself?
56. Who hired this klutz?
No doubt some campaign manager.
Who do you propose hire the healthcare development managers?
Someone with first-hand knowledge of large-scale software development and maintenance.
Or do you think Romney could manage a huge software project himself?
I don't. But if he'd been Chief Executive, he'd damn sure have tracked its progress in development and testing, unlike Obama, who instead devoted all available resources to the 2012 election campaign. During which, the necessary instructions stopped flowing to the software development teams, who were delayed - by Obama's obsession with political triumph at all costs - and could not even begin serious work until the very end of 2012.
Obama's dereliction of his Chief Executive duties to his 'signature legislation' between 2010 and October 1, 2013 are directly responsible for the current fiasco.
Why are so many people still bickering about a Governor's election of questionable result that is long gone, dead and buried ?
The ACA is a Trojan Horse for Single Payer concocted by the Democrat Party - in their craw for many many years. Forget the legal mumbo jumbo - its a law that seeks to extort more money from the young and healthy and middle class and make use of the death panels - in the words of Reich and Krugman more recently to reduce the older population depending on the financial well being of it. Romney did not have much of a leg to stand on after signing Romneycare into law. It is incumbent on the Republicans to show me/us what their replacement law will look like for those parts of Obamacare that are discarded. If thats going to be the cornerstone of their campaign for 2014, they have a good chance to gain some ground - IF...
Insufficient@72, now I understand! Romney hired an idiot who hired a klutz who screwed up a key part of his 4-year campaign, but he could come in from the outside and rescue a big software mix-up. And he'd track progress just like he tracked the polls that showed he was going to win in 2012.
KDS@74, now I understand! The Democrats view Obamacare as a way of stealing from the young to subsidize the old ... and kill the old with death panels ... and then tax those old, subsidized dead people through the death tax.
Thanks for explaining!
No problem, Bruce @ 75, Too bad that you are not too observant, but here's a question; Since when do leftists consider or care about unintended consequences of their own legislation ? (Republicans care a little more, to put it into perspective). Leftists (ie. this White House) cares about as much as the Communist Party has. The Democrat leadership has adopted the old Soviet strategy of spending the economy into oblivion if they can get away with it. As another American wrote -
"Obama spits in American's eyes and tells us its our fault? Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining." Similarly Harry Reid, Sebellius or Jay Carney-barker, Schumer, McCaskill or the rest of the corrupt clowns of the Senate majority.
KDS@76, I guess I don't need to answer your question about what "leftists" care about since you seem certain you know the answer already.
You are free to believe that one party has a monopoly on clear thinking while the other doesn't care about unintended consequences, wants to kill old people and destroy the country, is corrupt, etc. But such a closed mind won't make you smarter or persuasive.
You are right that "it is incumbent on the Republicans to show me/us what their replacement law will look like for those parts of Obamacare that are discarded". I hope it is different from the proposals that Republicans have been making for the past decade, which are essentially nothing other than eliminating the ability of states to regulate insurers and reducing the ability of injured people to be compensated by doctors who are found guilty of malpractice.
61. By the way, KDS@76, you are making a big assumption that there will be "parts of Obamacare that are discarded". How's that been going for the past few years? But I do expect there will be improvements in Obamacare over the coming years and decades, and it would be great if the Republicans genuinely participated instead of being the party of No. I have not seen the slightest indication of this to date.
Sensitive -- that was beautiful! Your immediate pirouette, from extolling Rmoney's imagined manly manly managerial manliness, to whimpering facile excuses for his real-world managerial failures, was more than even I had expected from the peanut gallery here. The dedication you put into validating my remarks, @4, is truly appreciated. (You get bonus points for claiming that his running a web site is a bad analogy to -- wait for it! -- running a web site, and for implying a candidate for elected office has more important concerns that getting out the vote.)
"Why are so many people still bickering about a Governor's election of questionable result that is long gone, dead and buried?"
Um, because bitter whiny sore losers whine bitterly about losing sorely? That's my guess. All I did was make the observation; you folks here, especially pudge, worked hard to show I was completely correct. Go ask him why he can't let it go.
Insufficient@47 explains why Mitt is his software hero:"He does know project management... He identifies the heads of departments..."
Um, but @69 you admitted "the head of Romney's software development team was apparently a klutz". So I guess we're not engaging Mitt for his hiring expertise.
"finds their completion status..."
And how does he "find" this? By asking them, the same contractors who told Obama the website was ready? Or does he study the code?
"asks what they need for resources and estimated time to completion, and issues his first candid PUBLIC status and progress report."
And what does he do with that information? Besides write a status report?
The big reason that the site went tits-up is because a gal-pal of Michelle's was an exec with CGI and it was a no bid contract. This shows you the pinnacle or Crony Capitalism as practiced by the Obama administration . . . abject failure. Pick another . . . Solyandra. And another: A123. And another: Fisker. And another: Tesla. And you can keep on going. All failures of Crony Capitalism because Crony Capitalism doesn't friggin' work!!! Jobs aren't let by the best skill set or experience but by who you know or how much money you bundled in the last election. Companies don't grow because they use a good technology or offer something somebody wants, it's only if they fit a political agenda. CGI was a KNOWN bad actor with other big failures but they still got the job!! They shouldn't even have been considered. And let's not mention that their contribution to the ACA cost 40 times what it would had it been built for a private company.
Obama is a divisive, inexperienced, know nothing boob and his wife isn't much better. At least she openly hates the country.
65. Do you suffer from KIDNEY DISEASE? Do you know that, according to latest researches, DIALYSIS IS NOT NECESSARY? A friend of mine got off dialysis (stage 5 CKD) and healed his kidney. Take a look: https://www.facebook.com/angelique.dubois.3150/posts/1412669305622411
66. At first I thought @82 was spam but now I am wondering if it's the Republican Healthcare Plan that KDS promised in @74?
@83 - Just one more reason you show yourself to be a "dim bulb". You don't mind looking foolish because you are used to it.
What Republican Healthcare plan ? (The Heritage Foundation that your ilk believes transcended into Obamacare is a nice try at obfuscation and leftist propaganda)
69. simple, but effective. A lot of occasions ita??s tough to get that a??perfect balancea?? among usability and appearance. I should say that youa??ve carried out a excellent task with this. Also, the blog hundreds extremely fast for me on Internet discover.
KDS@84 asks, "What Republican Healthcare plan?"
My question exactly. Who's on first?