Even the NY Times can’t hide…
…the debacle that was the Obamacare website launch:
For the past 12 days, a system costing more than $400 million and billed as a one-stop click-and-go hub for citizens seeking health insurance has thwarted the efforts of millions to simply log in. The growing national outcry has deeply embarrassed the White House, which has refused to say how many people have enrolled through the federal exchange.
Even some supporters of the Affordable Care Act worry that the flaws in the system, if not quickly fixed, could threaten the fiscal health of the insurance initiative, which depends on throngs of customers to spread the risk and keep prices low…
By early this year, people inside and outside the federal bureaucracy were raising red flags. “We foresee a train wreck,” an insurance executive working on information technology said in a February interview. “We don’t have the I.T. specifications. The level of angst in health plans is growing by leaps and bounds. The political people in the administration do not understand how far behind they are.”
It’s interesting that the Times is still capable of writing hard-hitting pieces when it wants to. Usually, however, it only wants to against Republicans. In this piece, despite a few pro forma jabs at Republicans and the shutdown, it’s pretty much open season on the web’s designers and those in the administration who oversaw the debacle.
What is it about the Obamacare rollout that caused the Times to stop carrying Obama’s water, if only for a minute? The first thing might be that they don’t have to blame Obama, who most likely did not oversee the design of the website. The second is that it is, indeed, deeply embarrassing—perhaps even to the Times, which has been cheerleading Obama and Obamacare for so long. And the third reason might be that it is more than ordinarily difficult to hide or disguise or spin this particular story, when so many citizens have actually interacted with the website and experienced major troubles, and then told their friends and family. This screw-up is more immediately up-close and personal than most.
But over it all looms the fear that the mess implicates Big Government and its efficiency as a whole, and bolsters the conservative narrative. So the Times may be warning those responsible in the Obama administration that if they are too glaringly incompetent, even their friends in the liberal press might actually call them on it, because that high a level of ineptitude potentially endangers the entire liberal enterprise.
“What is it about the Obamacare rollout that caused the Times to stop carrying Obama’s water, if only for a minute?”
This one would turn out to be pretty hard to hide, especially if it keeps up, and especially if local media keep highlighgting it.
Was Charles Krauthammer (among others) essentially right, when he suggested, in effect, that when the enemy is imploding, step aside, get out of the way, and enjoy?
I have been trying to find a single tale of successful purchase on the federal exchange that includes actual physical evidence of being a truthful one. The media have also been looking for such stories, and they continue to publish some, but then they don’t even bother trying to prove the stories are actually truthful.
Hey, gang, whaddaya think? —
Is it possible that all these rollout “glitches” are planned? Here’s what strikes me . . .
The idea would be, people for the most part still haven’t been hit by Affordable Care Act (ACA) sticker shock, but once the ACA funding is safely over the legislative hurdle and the spigot is turned on for keeps, people will then find out about the ACA costs — but by then it’s too late.
. . . once the ACA funding is safely over the legislative hurdle and the spigot is turned on for keeps,
then the “glitches” magically get resolved, and people will then find out about the ACA costs – but by then it’s too late.
Too conspiratorial?
A 400 million dollar website that can’t even be logged into? One that is almost impossible to complete satisfactorily? A train wreck indeed.
According to the CBO, 6 million Americans will pay an IRS penalty under ACA’s insurance mandate. (I take that low number with a grain of salt) They will be fined for failing to purchase something, that the government has insisted that they must purchase, but cannot provide…out of sheer incompetence.
The longer this goes on, the more likely that this level of ineptitude will create electoral fallout.
Krauthammer is stuck on an old world view of the Left, as mere politics and a game where if you wait, the enemy’s turn times out.
Amazon.com gets 20m visitors a day.
That is all the information anyone anywhere needs about a) The Obamacare roll out; b) The Federal Government; c) Your life as a subject of Der Liberalen
Do as you are ordered to do.
Resistance will be dealt with in the usual way.
A website that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce but doesn’t work is not a train wreck for the people who were paid hundreds of millions of dollars to produce it.
Huckabee had several people on his show tonight that were hit by Obamacare sticker shock. One was a young college graduate who is barely surviving and literally cannot afford her new premium. One family saw their new premium go up by $9700 per year, which they can ill afford.
Obama would have been wise to delay the rollout for another year. I believe this is providing a perfect campaign issue for 2014. The Rs can run to repeal the ACA and replace it with a more free market system that works to make medical costs more transparent and provides the same tax benefits to individual healthcare insurance purchasers that companies get. And tort reform, of course.
It may appear that the dems have gained control. Unfortunately for them, we still have elections in this country. There was a foretaste of what can happen in 2014 at the Veterans Memorials in D.C. today.
J.J. formerly Jimmy J., 12:31 am — “It may appear that the dems have gained control. Unfortunately for them, we still have elections in this country.”
But how rigged, at this point, are the elections we (still) have? Just askin’ . . .
An alternative history of the past two months
By BYRON YORK
http://washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-seize-advantage-on-obamacare-white-house-struggles-to-defend-an-alternative-history-of-the-past-two-months/article/2537193
Okay, I’ll do a “tinyurl” without being so prompted (smile):
http://tinyurl.com/ojf5d9f
(tested twice by M J R)
Beltway Confidential
GOP seizes advantage on Obamacare, White House struggles to defend:
An alternative history of the past two months
By BYRON YORK
The Washington Examiner
OCTOBER 13, 2013 AT 8:44 PM
“So the Times may be warning those responsible in the Obama administration that if they are too glaringly incompetent, even their friends in the liberal press might actually call them on it, because that high a level of ineptitude potentially endangers the entire liberal enterprise.”
Obama doesn’t care. Not his job. His job is finished; if the rest of the government apparatus fails, he’s not to blame, and nobody in the media, as you pointed out, will tie him to it specifically. Absent any leadership to fix it — as it cuts into the tee times and general goofing off he does, his administration isn’t going to pull it together.
But the Republicans will. Numbnuts McCain and his buddies will ride to the rescue if they get a majority out of this mess. I will bet money that as things continue to unravel, he and his bozos in the Senate will run campaign ads in 2014 promising to fix it – not to repeal it, but to fix it.
Those Republicans who are furious with Cruz and Mike Lee, claiming their strategy to let horrrible mess transpire as the path to victory, are dying to win the hearts of voters by offering a better package. What else could they do? Are all these voters who’ve been waiting for their free health care going to cast a vote for a bunch who tell them “vote for us, we’re giving you nothing”. There are millions of others who’ve been dropped by their company’s plans — what are they going to do? – vote for the party who hasn’t got a plan to get them insured again?
It is hard to believe that people like Krauthammer and Kristol are paid vast sums of money to be consistently wrong – they’re advice is lousy. Their track record is abysmal at picking candidates and reading elections before and after. They can’t seem to recall the last 2 elections, which were essentially the “where is my stuff?” elections.
As bad as BO care stinks, none of those negatively affected are going to cast a vote for the candidates who haven’t got a replacement plan ready to sign up for, they’re going to vote for the people with a plan to fix the existing train wreck – because even that is better than nothing at all. People will reason that fixing the glitches is better than starting all over. And the media and Democrats will convince them to invest a little more time.
If the 2014 elections are behind us, and there’s no gain in the house or senate by Republicans, O’reilly, Krauthammer, et. al will be pulling their chins in deep analysis, advising that the Republicans should have had an alternative plan , in effect, that they should have known better — in effect, a Repulican health care plan. Boner-McCain care, or BM Care for short. The point being, it will stink too, and it won’t be any less socialist or intrusive, but the professional advice givers will endorse it because it’s a Republican socialist, intrusive program.
Personally, I don’t think the people who set up the 0bamacare site had 3 years to do it like everyone says. I think they had barely over a year.
I don’t think anyone in the country, let alone the administration, thought that 0bamacare was constitutional. So there wasn’t that much effort put into the site until June of last year after Roberts spit on the constitution.
If elections are so critical to solving the problem, how long before the Jew voting Democrats and the black voting Democrats, Muslim Panthers, and shakedown reverends, “fix” their problem?
There needs to be some “actual proof” rather than just faith in “democracy”.
southpaw: “Numbnuts McCain and his buddies will ride to the rescue if they get a majority out of this mess.”
It has to be fixed! Repealing it is the first step. Under Obamacare’s rules the insurance industry is in a position to reap huge profits while the policy holders suffer. Repeal of the law won’t fix that. The first step is to allow insurance companies to once again tailor policies to people’s real needs. (Free market policy) The hidden pricing and cost shifting of medical care has to be addressed. Tort reform must be enacted. Individual policy buyers must get the same tax break that employers get. Block grant Medicaid to the states and let them figure out the best way to deliver the care to the indigent. Set up a national risk pool for those with pre-existing conditions. Subsidize it if necessary. Dr. Ben Carson and others in the Republican Party have good ideas for reform. They need to be given a chance to put them into action.
One thing that is lost in this whole thing is that medical care delivery and payment really do need to be reformed. It’s just that Obamacare (A giant regulatory structure that does nothing to reduce costs or create more efficient delivery.) is not the way to do it.
Yamarsakar: “There needs to be some “actual proof” rather than just faith in “democracy”.
In other words, elections are no longer the answer? Obama only won by 2%. If conservatives and libertarians stay home because their perfect candidate isn’t running, it allows socialism to triumph. Many people here seem inclined to believe that violence may be the answer. I still believe that the average citizen is peaceful and law abiding. Misinformed, yes, but violent, no.
The screwup known as Obamacare, which no R voted for and the Rs constantly warned against implementing, is now out there for even the misinformed to see. This is going to cut very deep. It’s a public relations disaster for the dems. Byron York’s article implies that all is lost. It isn’t. The strategy he talks about can still be implemented.
In other words, elections are no longer the answer?
If you can answer the problem of how a bunch of semi literate slaves are going to vote out and get rid of their masters, yes.
If you have that answer, you can avoid a civil war. So are you claiming you have the answers to things that nobody else had, since they had to fight a war to solve it? The Founding Fathers had no answer and so fought a war. You have an answer to that that would have made them fix the problem without war? The North vs the South, did you have an answer in Elections that would have fixed their problem without war?
What about now, where’s your answer to the problems now?
“Elections”, as it is used so far, is just another “hope”. Like “hope and change”.
Ymarsakar: “What about now, where’s your answer to the problems now?”
I thought I gave answers in my two previous comments. Losing an election by 2% is a very close thing. Especially when the dems offered handouts while the Rs offered personal responsibility. Now, with Obamacare, the handouts are revealed to be less than advertised. Many young people who voted for Obama are going to be hit upside the head by reality. Many LIV independents, the same. When you have suddenly realized that the promises (You can keep your policy, you can keep your doctor, you will pay less) were all phony, and when someone offers a solution, even a LIV independent or young socialist is likely to listen. The unaffordability of Obamcare is a pocket-book issue. It’s hard to believe people won’t go out and vote for relief from this Frankenstein monster.
I’d prefer to find a peaceful way out, but I fail to see what the “average citizen” being “peaceful” has to do with anything.
Socialism, if imposed, is inherently not peaceful, since it uses force to achieve its goals. The “affordable” care act uses the IRS to obtain compliance, and they will send armed men to make sure you comply, if lesser means fail.
To clarify something, I don’t mean that the GOP will never win in an election again so they can give up. It’s worse than that. Even if other people than the Left win, it won’t reverse the damage.
Because the system itself has grown cancerous and is controlled by AIDS. To gather the power required to change itself, is like trying to find a white blood cell that can destroy the HIV virus. If it succeeds, the entire immune system is destroyed. If it doesn’t succeed, the immune system is forever broken. The power that you use to change government, is government itself, top down hierarchy and authoritarian measures. While poison can be used to fight against poison, or fire against fire, that is not going to produce the liberty we seek. While we could replace the Left as the dominating power bloc in the US, that would only replace one tyrant with another. It is not the policies that need changing or even replacing the system with a new one, but rethinking the entire nature of right and wrong, good and evil as it applies to society and individuals.
Elections have never been used to successfully defeat evil. If you ever hear of a valid incidence, that proves the positive and counters that statement. I have yet to witness the existence of a counter. It’s not something non feasible because the Left exists. IT’s not feasible because humanity exists.
If the only excuse or reason people find in the false hope called elections is that they can “avoid violence” that way, they are mistaken. If you don’t fix the problem soon, violence is all you will ever get. Elections won’t be able to stop it, no matter how it ends up. All you accomplish by keeping faith with elections is to give democracy more time to destroy your civilization. Democracy has destroyed Many Civilizations in history. Just look up Athens.
J.J. formerly Jimmy J.
It’s not an answer because even if your chosen candidate wins, there’s no proof they will even put a dent in the Left’s Perfect HUman Utopia project.
So you can demonstrate that republicans can win with 2% or 5%. So is winning elections going to magically fix all the evil the Left has right here, right now?
Of course not. Winning an election is supposed to be the first step. So how is the “first step” absent results, an “answer” to fixing the problem?
It is no answer at all.
The unaffordability of Obamcare is a pocket-book issue. It’s hard to believe people won’t go out and vote for relief from this Frankenstein monster.
They’ll vote as the blacks and Jews vote. They’ll vote themselves more welfare to pay for all these costs.
The idea that in a democracy the people rule, is mistaken. In a democracy, the 1% rules given how majority rules work and how societies default to dictatorship models of leadership in crisis mode.
I don’t consider electing someone other than a Democrat fixing the problem. How will that destroy ACORN? How will that destroy PP? How will that destroy MediaMatters? How will that put a dent in George Soros’ money machine and the sinews of Leftist warfare? How will that get rid of lawyer unions, police unions, teacher unions, transportation unions, and government+private sector unions? If a non Democrat is just going to be elected and then preside over this, then it’s just the same as Obama, except all the Leftist human atrocities are hidden until a Democrat regains power.
Like Ancient Rome in the Western Roman Empire tried, not even competent new blood powerful Emperors could fix the damage that has been applied for the various centuries in which the tyrants ruled. They could maintain the system and keep it alive for a little longer, but it was inevitable that newer and fresher barbarian blood would take over the territory. As they were better fit to rule, if you look at how the Franks performed against the Islamic conquerors, Charles Martel the Hammer’s victory. Constantinople and the Christian temples all fell to the Islamic hordes in time, even though Byzantine survived the fall of Rome.
I have no faith that a bunch of politicians can fix DC, either now or in the future. It is too big a thing for mere humans to tackle.
http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/central-planning-vs-chaos-theory-which-is-superior/
This was in 2008. As I began to realize the depth of the Left’s power, organization deepness, and infiltration of various institutions Americans liked to call their own. It wasn’t their own though. It was the Left’s.
http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/the-leftist-alliance-deconstruct-in-detail/
This also describes some of my later conclusions after I’ve had some time to think and study X in more detail.
No proposed solution to Leftist power politics and evil can exist, without at least attempting to addressing the fundamental bedrock problems.
If people think they can break the back of the Left’s power, then show it to me via your “elections”. Time is running out though.
MJR – “people will then find out about the ACA costs”
JJJ – “One family saw their new premium go up by $9700 per year”
That is why I think the house republicans should demand that every comma and footnote in Obama care go into effect immediately; no exceptions or exemptions…. especialy for congress. Let the youthful Obama zombies and the “I vote for kids” soccer moms and dads feel the pain. Pain is a signal that something is wrong. It can do a body good.
Y – “I have no faith that a bunch of politicians can fix DC, either now or in the future. It is too big a thing for mere humans to tackle.”
It will collapse under its burden of corruption. Unfortunately, there is never a guarantee that something desirable crawls out from under the rubble.
A couple of years ago, Trump summed up the thousands of pages of obamacare in one paragraph which was all too prophetic.
” Let me get this straight….. we’re going to be gifted with a healthcare plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t which purportedly covers at least ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents who have recently demonstrated their objectivity and professionalism; written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it and signed by a president who smokes with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Post Office, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that is broke. What the hell could possibly go wrong?”
Ymasakar: Your posts describe a situation that is beyond fixing. You may be correct. But I still believe in our Constitution and I still believe that, in spite of all the advantages you attribute to the left, there is still hope. Otherwise, we might as well hold out our hands and just wait to be handcuffed. I intend to oppose them. Oppose them within the limits of the law and the Constitution and contest them on the electoral field. When and if that fails, I do not intend to go silently or peacefully into the night. I don’t believe the rule of law has failed completely…..yet.
There is an awakening occurring as Obamacare rolls out and the government shutdown reveals the ugly underbelly of the bureaucracy. The evil is manifesting itself and rising into view. The internet is carrying the message unlike the days when the left could work in secrecy. I cannot tell you how much more hopeful it is compared to the days when William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater were lonely voices in the political wilds.
Hello again, Neoconers!
The subject of the debacle of the Federal healthcare.gov website has been a hot topic of discussion amongst those of us here on the left side of the political spectrum, those of us who also have tech bona fides. I find it amusing that you guys find it somehow surprising or strange that the NYT would cover this, or that “liberals” somehow would think there was something surprising or strange about the idea that the government could royally fuck up a massive IT project. OF COURSE they fucked it up — it’s standard operating procedure for the Feds to fuck up large-scale IT projects, because Federal procurement procedures are horrifyingly complicated and only the worst, least competent, most bureaucratic firms apply for and win these contracts. And liberal tech people know this and none of us think this is a good thing. It’s not part of some master plan. It’s something all of us know about, and I’m surprised, Neo, that YOU would be surprised that “liberals” would acknowledge this.
Not everything liberals do (somewhat unlike, say, Fox News) is about scoring points in some sort of inane “government is the solution to everything” rhetoric. No, in fact, most liberals don’t think government should run everything, and most liberals don’t believe government is always an optimal manager of things. OF COURSE NOT. Only a crazed conspiracist would think that.
The government has REGULARLY fucked up large-scale IT projects, and this is something very well-known to liberal tech people like myself.
Great article on what went probably went wrong:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2013/10/problems_with_healthcare_gov_cronyism_bad_management_and_too_many_cooks.html
Eventually they’ll work it out.
What I (and most actual liberals) really believe is not that government does a great job of running everything. In fact, the whole point of Obamacare was supposed to be that the states would run the exchanges. Yes, the states, just like what most of you conservatives constantly talk about. And state-run exchanges have run quite well, especially California and New York. Less red tape, less bureaucracy, more competence. The irony is the Federal exchange is mostly for red states that refused to set up their own exchanges, because of misplaced ideological fervor, so ironically the Feds had to do it for them. And, of course, they messed it up.
But, eventually they’ll get it working. But it’s not ideal. Much more ideal would have been states setting up their own systems. Another thing you might not realize: Obamacare has a provision that states can opt out of Obamacare if they can find another way to get similar numbers of people covered via some other mechanism. Yes, that is part of the law. So how about it, states rights Republicans? Why not give it a shot?
The fact is, Obamacare is based on keeping private companies involved in health insurance. That’s why it’s so complicated. I personally think it’s a good idea to try a hybrid approach like this. It’s worked in other countries. I like the decentralized states-rights features. Yes, and I’m a liberal. I don’t want government to “take over” health care and everything else. Because government sucks at doing a lot of things.
Obama’s regime propaganda agent and dog finds it amusing.
Right. Sure.
As for the Constitution, that was built and created using the “blood of tyrants and patriots”, J. Let’s not forget that part.
Even after that point, there were other problems like slavery that weren’t going to be “fixed” using elections.
Yes, it is amusing, or strange, or bizarre: you guys have such a weird misconception about what “liberals” think, like we are all shocked that the Feds blew a huge IT project. The Feds have blown so many of these projects. The way the Feds handle IT projects is famously inept. They waste billions of dollars on systems that don’t work, and then hire new contractors who do the same thing, over again. Why? Procurement law is ridiculous, absurd, inefficient.
Mitsu: “The way the Feds handle IT projects is famously inept. They waste billions of dollars on systems that don’t work, and then hire new contractors who do the same thing, over again. Why? Procurement law is ridiculous, absurd, inefficient.”
You are absolutely correct on the inability of the government to do IT projects. Their 1980s attempt to modernize the Air Traffic Control system is a good example. Eight years and $100s of millions. It never worked. Someone in my neighborhood, a Boeing engineer, said that they should have tasked a bunch of 20 year old geeks, supplied them with plenty of pizza and skittles, and the system would have rolled out with few glitches. It certainly couldn’t have been much worse and would have cost a lot less. 🙂
I’m familiar with military procurement procedures. Extremely inefficient. Check out the F-35 program. It doesn’t surprise that other arms of the government are similarly inefficient. What does anger me, and anyone else who has been paying attention, is that the program does nothing to reduce medical care costs, nothing to allow people to keep their insurance plan, nothing to allow people to stay with their doctors. In addition, for a majority of people the costs are increasing – for their premiums and their deductibles. Many, many young people are not going to be able to afford insurance because it is too expensive – period! Yet they will have to pay a penalty, and if they are unlucky, out of pocket for the medical care they can’t afford to buy insurance for. This is a plan that will punish huge numbers of people financially. Some may be better off than before, but there will still be many millions without insurance.
That the NYT would admit there was anything wrong surprises us because they usually run interference for all things Obama.
Mitsu:
I’m puzzled by your assertion that people here think that liberals are so shocked by the fact that the feds blew a huge IT project. Can you point to someone who said that?
I certainly never said liberals were especially shocked by it, although I’d wager they’re a bit more shocked by it than conservatives were. And everyone, I think, is it least somewhat surprised at the overwhelming magnitude of it (that includes both liberals and conservatives). It’s an epic fail so far, and a mighty expensive one.
You seem to forget, also, that many people here (such as me) have spent more than half our lives as liberals, and still live in places where the vast majority of our friends, family, and acquaintances are in fact liberals. (In my case, it’s probably 99% or thereabouts). So we have a fair amount of familiarity with what liberals think.
In this post, by the way, I am not the least bit surprised the Times noticed the Obamacare website screwup. Nor do I have a clue whether the Times journalists were especially surprised or shocked or anything of the sort. I am surprised, however, that they covered the story, and especially that they covered it in a rather hard-hitting way. It is uncharacteristic of them to point out the failings of anything that has happened under Obama’s watch. And therefore I am theorizing as to why they might have decided to cover it. Thus, this post.
I’m not the least bit surprised that some liberals (such as, for example, yourself) who do not write for the NY Times would acknowledge the fact that the website is a mess. This entire post, however, was about an article in the New York Times and why it might have been published, not about a bunch of random liberals talking amongst themselves. If you can’t see the distinction, there’s little hope for you. But for a smart guy you continually misunderstand a great deal of what is said to you here. I don’t say that to be snarky, by the way; it’s just something I’ve experienced with you so many times now and for so many years that it seems to be a pattern.
>I am surprised, however, that they covered the story
I know your friends and relatives are mostly liberal, which is why I am rather surprised at your surprise. Not only is the general storyline that the government can and is extremely fallible when it comes to implementing certain things (for example, IT projects), something that most liberals take for granted, but we’re quite interested in this story because it is something of national significance and something which has burdened our government for decades — the ineptitude of the government at handling IT projects. I am certainly extremely interested in what went wrong here and it’s been the topic of a lot of discussion on the liberal conferencing systems I participate in, with no one giving the government a pass or wanting to suppress the story or in any way thinking that this isn’t a very important, worthwhile topic worthy of discussion.
Given the level of interest among pretty much everyone I know who cares about this stuff, I would be surprised if the NYT *didn’t* cover this story in as much depth as they can. We are the typical target audience of the newspaper, and we are very interested in it.
Not only the NYT but lots of other “liberal” publications have been buzzing about this since the rollout — there’s been a ton of interest in what went wrong and how bad things are with procurement. I’ve been thinking about this issue for years, myself, since I know some folks who have worked with government and I’ve talked about procurement reform with members of the Obama Administration who came by my tech seed accelerator to take the temperature of the tech community. We all see this as one of the major failings of government and something that should be addressed, and certainly something worthy of coverage in the NYT.
Fox News is kind of the propaganda arm of the Republican Party but there isn’t the same equivalence on the other side. Sure, the NYT usually prints pro-liberal points of view but I think editors there, like most liberals, are quite eager to point out mistakes and flaws when they come around. Perhaps you find that surprising but I don’t really understand why.
Mitsu:
I could name a thousand stories just as interesting, and just as important or far far more important, that the Times either (1) ignored; or (2) spun to make Obama and/or the Democrats look good and Republicans bad. So covering this one, and especially covering it in a way that mostly reflected poorly on the administration (although, as I already wrote in the post, the Times offered some perfunctory blame for Republicans as well) is unusual and need explanation.
The fact that you and your liberal friends are noticing the problems with the Obamacare website rollout and talking about the situation is no surprise and comes under my point number three, which was, in case you’ve forgotten:
And by “most” in that last sentence, I don’t mean most IT screwups, I mean most screwups by the Obama administration.
Why? Procurement law is ridiculous, absurd, inefficient.
Yeah… sure, like the money going into your Democrat friends and Leftist allies somehow makes it less absurd and inefficient.
When did you get authorization from your keepers to go out of the box, again?
>I could name a thousand stories just as interesting
Sure, but I think the reasons for the NYT “ignoring” those stories (at least in some cases) isn’t that they’re making a political calculation (i.e., “don’t print anything unflattering to Obama!”) but they have a different judgement about whether these stories are, in fact, important. Maybe that judgement is flawed or wrong, from your point of view, and there’s where your judgement and theirs differ; but it’s not simply that the NYT doesn’t want to ever print anything critical of liberals.
I’m saying that liberals and conservatives can agree on the ineptitude of the government when it comes to execution of tasks that are typically done better by the private sector, like IT. There’s simply no disagreement on the significance of that, on that topic. But that’s also because liberals do not, despite what some on the right think, think that government does everything better, or that the government should do everything. In fact, I and most liberals I think accept that the government is ill-equipped to execute most tasks that the private sector can do. So in this particular case there’s just no ideological dissonance in talking about the story. It fits perfectly with mainstream liberal thought, today.
Where I think the right, in its current incarnation, and the liberal left differ is that liberals think government can and should do more things than conservatives think it should do. But there’s a bright line and it’s far from the case that the “liberal project” involves government doing everything or even much more than it already does.
I’m wondering if an example of one of the “important” stories might be Benghazi — here’s an example where you might think the NYT is biased, but I personally don’t happen to think the incident was that significant in the grand scheme. Of course, we disagree about that, but my point is that I don’t think the NYT is purposefully ignoring a story they agree is important — I think in their view that story is not as important as you think it is. Perhaps, they, and I, are wrong, but it’s not because they are just making a determination that all such stories should be ignored just because they’re critical of the Obama Administration.
>somehow makes it less absurd and inefficient
I think that there are structural reasons why the Federal government will likely never be able to execute IT projects as efficiently as states, or the private sector, for all the same reasons you do, most likely: too big and too bureaucratic. But, they can probably do somewhat better.
>keepers
My overlords are paying me overtime to sit in my jeans on the floor of my apartment, typing to you on my laptop for all the tens or hundreds of people who read this blog. Given how nearly totally I’ve failed to convince anyone here of anything over the years, I daresay they’re not getting their money’s worth.
Mitsu:
Oh, they (the editors) have a different kind of judgment, all right.
And different criteria. Such as, for example (the main one): political party. What is made into a big brouhaha if a Republican does it, and covered every day as negative front page news (and is often misrepresented, lied about, misquoted, and/or exaggerated to make it seem worse) is almost always hushed up if a Democrat does it, or covered up, or spun, or blamed on a Republican anyway, or excused, or downplayed, or lied about to make it seem better.
The phenomenon is so ubiquitous as to be almost humorous if it weren’t so dangerous. And you don’t even notice it! Or you pretend not to notice it; I really can never tell whether you are as naive as you sound, or as unaware, or whether you’re just tweaking us.
I vote: naive and unaware. But I’m not at all sure.
Snorts. First he’s an Obama supporter, then an Obamacare zealot, now he’s trying to cover for the New York Times and what other crazy propaganda network he thinks needs him…
Right.
I daresay they’re not getting their money’s worth.
You’d best be careful of failing your review quota.
The last guy that did that got gunned down by Mexican cartels supplied by Eric Holder’s ATF, Obama’s right hand man. Although you may not think yourself important for a drone strike, Obama is always interested in seeing humans die on that tv of his, so don’t think you’re safe.
We also know that Obama is paying for websites and information. His paid propaganda agents are in the news, where they cover more people for the buck. So if you’re in IT or some such company, you’re being scouted for your loyalties and then paid out of the enslaved debt slaves in the US.
So how much money did your company and friends take out for their “new and improved” healthcare website proposal? 1.2 billion this time, as opposed to the 650billion last time, is it.
Ymarkasar, I have no interest whatsoever in working on a government IT contract now or until the procurement rules are changed, which may never happen. It’s hellish. I like to actually get work done.
>if a Republican does it
I’m not claiming that the NYT isn’t biased at all, but I daresay that it isn’t as systematically biased as Fox News, which does precisely what you’re saying, in reverse, often comically reversing views they expressed in the past depending on whether an R or D is doing it. When it comes to the NYT, I think the judgement varies depending on the story, but it’s certainly not the case that every editorial judgement is simply based on party.
Mitsu:
That’s the liberal line, all right: Fox does it!
No, actually, Fox doesn’t do it. Fox has opinion people (talk show type people) who do it, but Fox’s straight journalism is quite straight, and in fact doesn’t lean very far to the right at all. The Times news stories are very often opinion journalism masquerading as news journalism, quite a different story.
Oh, and by the way, I’m not saying this because I’m conservative. It’s one of the things I noticed at the beginning of my change experience, and one of the many drivers of that change: I noticed to my surprise (as a liberal) that the conservative news reporters were far more objective than the liberal ones. And I was being pretty objective, I think, because at the time I was a liberal and had been for my entire life.
I have no interest whatsoever in working on a government IT contract now
As opposed to what, the government IT contracts you were working on before the website launched?
Or the contracts your buddies and social circle have been paid for to do?
I suppose in that kind of job, ideological loyalty will be held at a premium. If so, your presence here can have interesting consequences for you down the line.
>As opposed to what
Hahaha, very funny, Ymarkasar. No, I work in the private sector tech industry, thank God.
>actually, Fox doesn’t do it
I’ve heard that before, yet there are numerous examples of the contrary, even within the supposedly evenhanded news division. There’s the fairly well-known exposé of the internal workings of the news division at Fox, where former executives have come forward detailing the memos that come from the top regarding how to talk about news stories in a way that makes conservative and Republican viewpoints appear in a better light. For instance, some examples:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News
http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/07/14/33-internal-fox-editorial-memos-reviewed-by-mmf/131430
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=3395
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/i_was_a_liberal_mole_at_fox_news_from_bill_oreilly_to_roger_ailes_heres_all_the_inside_dope/
Ultimately, however, as usual I’m not really that interested in bashing Fox News or conservatives — I’m mostly posting here to argue against the notion that liberals march in lockstep towards some sort of “government takeover of everything” agenda which seems to be the bugaboo of a lot of your commenters here. That is patently absurd and has never been the belief system or goal of mainstream liberals now or ever, even if it might have been the goal of some radicals in the 60’s before they grew up and learned better. I daresay none of the 99% of your liberal friends and relatives actually believe that the world would be better off if the government actually ran everything, and almost all of them would fight to stop that from ever happening.
In other words, no, Obamacare is not the beginning of the end of freedom. If Obamacare is the beginning of the end of freedom, then the British, the Swedes, Canadians, French, etc., all must live in Stalinist nightmare lands, because their health care systems are about 1000x more government-centric than Obamacare. Yet I’ve been to most of those countries and they really don’t strike me as mini-USSRs.
I personally think that NHS in the UK sucks and that keeping private incentive structures is better than what they do in the UK. So that puts me to the right of Jolly Ole England’s health care policy. Am I going to be kicked out of the secret liberal conspiracy?
I’m not sure how you think you’ll have a choice, when the Left nationalizes your industry and job, Mitsu.
You think you’ll have a private say in things then?
Not even google could defy the NSA, even as they kept saying “do no evil”.
then the British, the Swedes, Canadians, French, etc., all must live in Stalinist nightmare lands
Muslim nightmare lands.
Yet I’ve been to most of those countries and they really don’t strike me as mini-USSRs.
The Muslims are not a majority yet, so they are kept out of sight of tourists. Or to be more accurate, tourists like you are kept out of their enclaves, for your own safety.