Slashdot Mirror
HealthCare.gov: What Went Wrong?
New submitter codeusirae writes "An initial round of criticism focused on how many files the browser was being forced to download just to access the site, per an article at Reuters. A thread at Reddit appeared and was filled with analyses of the code. But closer looks by others have teased out deeper, more systematic issues."
My take on it (as I've posted previously):
The government seems to treat the population, in many ways, much as a farmer treats his livestock. But when it comes to getting old, how DOES a farmer treat livestock?
On a farm, while livestock is healthy and producing profit, they're valuable. Once they're costing more than they're producing, it's time to get rid of them. A particularly beloved animal might be kept on as a pet. But the anonymous mass has to go.
Since at lest the late '70s or early '80s, the impending bankruptcy of Social Security has been a worry for government officials. I recall one of them making a "slip of the tongue" on a CNN interview, back when the channel was new: She lamented that small families and the success of the '60s anti-population-growth propaganda was leading to too many retired and two few working, and they had to "get the death rate up to match the birth rate" to save the program. That may not be the official position, but that sort of thinking is pervasive.
In past generations oldsters could be counted on for votes. But aging boomers aren't as solid a voting block for the party in power as some of the later generations - particularly the new, undocumented, immigrants.
What if our current party-in-power has decided that, now that the Baby Boomers are aging out of the work force, becoming a drain on, rather than paying into, the government coffers, it's time to kill them off? How could they go about it?
Just setting up "Death Panels" and picking who's going to be left to die isn't too popular. (Look at the bad press they got when they included that in a companion bill to Obamacare.)
But how about this:
- Nationalize the bulk of the medical insurance industry.
- Change the rules on all of it, so the prices for private plans goes 'way up, and the insurance companies can dump the sickly from their current, lower-priced, plans because they don't conform to the new rules.
- Then botch the rollout, so those dumped can't get new insurance, either.
Result:
- The poor boomers are dumped from their insurance. The moderately well-to-do boomers have their healthcare prices skyrocket, quickly draining them into "poor boomer" status. (Give 'em six months to three years without insurance and see how many are left.) Only the truly rich can afford to stay alive and healthy.
- With the "It's a really GREAT program, there's just a few bugs in the rollout." claim they can stretch it out and leave the oldsters uninsured for years.
- Meanwhile the politicians who orchestrated this get to claim they're doing it to HELP the population, not to kill them off. (They even get to claim it's their opposition who is trying to kill off grandma.)
Maybe it's not what's happening. But it fits so well with the rest of their track records and the party's historical roots. I ask myself, "If they were doing this deliberately, WHAT would they do differently?". And I can't think of a single thing.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Dear socialist, Please explain to me how buying a product that the government forces people to buy and forces a company to provide at a specific level of service NOT socialism? Competitive market place? You don't have a clue! Socialists always look stupid and confirm it when opening their collective mouths.
is never going to convince anyone
When someone comes straight out and says that Obama is "left" when he is clearly to the right of Reagan in many places, I know I'm not going to convince anyone otherwise that thinks Obama is a commie, but I will come out and insult because it makes me feel better.
"I want to believe you can do better."
Whatever, man.
Anne Coulter is a demagogue at best. I find her completely without redeeming value at all, as do many others with at least two functioning neurons. And it hasn't been just this century that I've come to that conclusion, it's been over 20 years of hearing her yammer her nonsense that leads me to suspect that whatever she says in the future will also be nonsense.
Deal with it.
--
BMO