Slashdot Mirror
Project Rescue Expert Todd Williams Talks About Healthcare.gov (Video)
By now, most Americans have either heard or learned firsthand that the Healthcare.gov website doesn't work right. Slings, arrows, and brickbats are being slung all over Washington, and Congressional representatives are busily thundering imprecations at all and sundry who were involved in putting Healthcare.gov together. If there have been any Congressional hearing focusing on how to fix the problems, though, we have not seen them. You'd think that our representatives would bring in people like today's interviewee, Todd Williams, who has written a book titled Rescue the Problem Project and runs a company that specializes in rescuing failed projects. What's more, Todd is just one of many Americans who have helped rescue projects that have gone awry. Hopefully our government has at least one of them working on Healthcare.gov by now, although we haven't heard that they've selected a strong turnaround manager and set him or her to work on the project -- and you'd think they would have told us if they had.
I can't watch the video. After the ad played for 63 seconds, I am done.
You'd think that mentioning who is in charge of fixing it should be mentioned. That's just a quick google away and his name is Jeffrey Zientz. There's not a lot of information out there, but what is there seems reasonably positive. Here's npr's article: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/10/23/240283860/white-house-turns-to-rock-star-manager-for-obamacare-fix
Here's Washington Posts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/10/24/who-is-jeffrey-zients-and-why-is-he-qualified-to-fix-healthcare-gov/
Citation to specific bill which caused this please.
If it was a traffic load issue, why does the issue still persist nearly 2 months since launch when the traffic to the site dropped by 88% after the first couple of weeks? http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/visits-to-federal-health-care-web-site-off-88percent/2013/10/15/7a73f45c-35e2-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html
More so, you realize under Federalism... states do still have some rights... right?
Remind me... how many Republican's voted for this monstrosity of a law which is forcing people to lose their health insurance plans and pay even more out of pocket for the replacements? Right... ZERO.
Don't blame the Republicans when the liberals couldn't come up with enough votes to implement single payer.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
"Socialism has always resulted in a lower standard of living for the people it's purported to help." You don't do credit to your position when you state outright falsehoods. For a clear counterexample, check out Norway. By a number of indicators, they have the highest standard of living in the world, and are also one of the more socialist nations on Earth, and their prosperity has come in parallel with their switch from a monarchy to a socialist democracy. All of Scandinavia and Western Europe in general have followed this pattern. Extreme, tyrannical socialism certainly fails, just like extreme, tyrannical capitalism does, but nations that respect civil liberties tend to do well economically, regardless of whether they have a more cooperative or independent economic governance. There may be facts to bolster your cause, but baseless talking points are not facts.
California exchange signed up 35,000 people the first month.
California sent out 5 million cancellations in the same time period.
150 people lost coverage for everyone added via the exchange. THIS IS SUCCESS for Obamacare supporters!
Note: In order to participate in the exchange the health insurance companies in California were REQUIRED BY LAW to cancel ALL individual policies. If they refuesed to cancel individual policies they would not be allowed to sell in the exchange there.
Like I said, this is one of their best examples of sucess. A reasonable person would call it failure, but I guess they are not reasonable.
"If he pulls the trigger on this, Reid would not only break his on-the-record, unambiguous promise to the Senate in 2011, he would also execute a ploy that he deemed "un-American" when the shoe was on the other foot. Here is a parade of Senate Democrats angrily denouncing a(n abandoned) Republican proposal to enact a similar rule change in 2005...The 'Gang of 14' compromise ultimately prevailed in '05, thus averting the "Constitutional crisis" Chuck Schumer warned about. It has held ever since." -- Guy Benson
"We remember when a "judicial emergency" was the Senate's way of calling attention to vacancies based on a court's caseload. Those were the good old days. Now Democrats are threatening to change Senate rules if Republicans don't acquiesce to their plan to confirm three new judges to the most underworked appellate circuit in the country. That's the story behind the fight over the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with the White House trying to pack the court that reviews much of its regulatory agenda.
"On Monday Senate Republicans blocked the third nominee to the D.C. appellate court in recent weeks, and Democrats with short memories of their judicial filibusters in the Bush years are claiming this is unprecedented. Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats are threatening to resort to the so-called nuclear option, which would let the Senate confirm judicial nominees by a simple majority vote.
"This is nothing but a political power play because the D.C. Circuit doesn't need the new judges. It currently has 11 authorized judgeships and eight active judges—four appointed by Democratic Presidents and four by Republicans. The court also has six senior judges who hear cases varying from 25% to 75% of an active judge's caseload. Together they carry the equivalent caseload of 3.25 active judges, according to numbers from Chief Judge Merrick Garland. That means the circuit has the equivalent of 11.25 full-time judges. That's more than enough considering that the court's caseload is the lightest in the country." -- Wall Street Journal
You can. Not just local government offices, but local community centers. You can also call someone with the government over the phone to help you find insurance. Or, alternatively, you can get the information directly from the insurance companies (whom you have to sign up with anyway, even when using the website).
There's an intentional obfuscation of the situation here to try and equate the roll out of the website with the roll out of the law. They are not the same thing.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Which part? I know they were trying to, but I don't recall them succeeding, even after shutting down the govt. they couldn't defund it or delay it (although I bet some Dems now upon reflection wish Reps has succeeded).
Well, it was a voluntary thing, it isn't like the Feds could ORDER the states to set it up, states rights and all you know.
Did it ever occur to you that they might just be representing their constituents that flat out do not want a single payer system? That many folks do not want the feds 100% in charge of their health care (and seeing the clusterfuck that ACA is so far, with good reason)?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........