Obama says he's sorry Americans losing insurance

How come they did not see this coming..Or was this by design to draw attention to inferior products and then show the ability to fix with a better product.. But if this was not by design, someone fucked up...

Am I wrong?

Hopefully he will start cleaning house of the incompetent aides and get some people who will be honest with him.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/is_obamas_take_on_mccarthyism_to_blame_for_obamacare_troubles_20131028

... on the reported "climate of fear" this article claims has been created by Obama's zealous trackdown of leaks.

What I DO have is decades of experience working on large software projects. Trust me, unless the top level managers are extremely competent (a rarity in my experience) getting blindsided by the true state/condition of a project is practically a routine occurrence.

There are many reasons for this. First of all, software developers are notoriously prone to over-estimating the completion level of their work. They will tell themselves they are 95% done and that they can get it into shape in the next few days. The problem is that that last "5%" of the work winds up taking 50% of the time.

Secondly, lower level managers are all too happy to believe a software engineer when s/he says s/he is "almost done". Because nobody likes bad news. And nobody at the bottom of the management tree wants to admit to his "superiors" that the work is not progressing on schedule. So basically it is easy and common to get a dynamic going where denial and incompetence and a lot of wishful thinking ("oh it will work" - nobody remains an optimist in this business for long, nothing works until it is MADE to work) lead to failed projects.

Some years ago a study concluded that something like HALF of all large software development projects end in failure with the accrued investment abandoned. Lot of companies that used to hire other companies to do this sort of thing are doing it themselves now and without competent experienced leadership it almost never goes well.

Emerging techniques of managing software development, agile methods in particular, are solving this problem somewhat by making it harder for people to fool themselves about the completeness of the work, among other things. But looking at how this project was approached and managed, it's a miracle it works at all IMHO.

Specifically, the drone program and associated human rights violations not scaled back by his administration; his tendency to let Republican nutjobs regularly reframe the debate, always in a rightward direction; and the bungled rollout of the ACA.

I sincerely believe he could have been a great president, and now he'll just be seen as a good one.

Stories are emerging in msm concerning many ACA success stories...
The problems involving MIC are numerous and include Drones, Indefinite Intention and NSA issues. Does anyone honestly believe that a perceived Kenyan Socialist President could dismantle this Complex within 4 years.

Give me a break..

With a stroke of his pen.

And whether the ACA signup process is fixed sooner rather than later, the fact that it was monumentally botched at startup is going to stick to Obama's legacy.

after he signed your bill...The right wing media backed by every republican political organization and politician,
would have buried our President. Would have lost the White House for at least 4 election cycles..

I happen to think the cure is worse than the disease.

Geez, can't stand these people that try to derail every single Obama thread by rattling off a list of their general grievances. Its just derailing and nothing more.

Go pound sand.

My post was completely on topic. It placed the botched rollout firmly in the class of 'things that will count against Obama's legacy,' which was my point.

If that doesn't interest you, read some other post.

"Specifically, the drone program and associated human rights violations not scaled back by his administration; "

^as fuck all to do with the topic

"Then. Don't. Read. It."

Kinda tough to realize a post is irrelevant and pushing an agenda until after one reads it.

That concept, however, may be rocket science to the sub-literate...

Was that I rejected his/her evaluation of my post as off-topic. If phlesh was attempting to do anything other than picking at a scab, he/she would have moved on to something more substantive -- like someone else's post.

Instead, phlesh continued his/her pointless ragging. Which you've now joined.

Don't you have something better to do?

P.S.: my post was absolutely on-topic.

They aren't, though.

where's the apology from bush for the senseless wars, drowned city and crashed economy

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!

As soon as I saw the headline I started hearing soundbites for the next GOPer presidential nominee "do you want more of the same?". I respect the President for coming out and saying that he's sorry for people who are losing these sub-standard insurance plans, but from a political standpoint it doesn't sound the greatest. I hope in the coming weeks an emphasis is put on the fact that insurance companies had been selling crap policies that don't cover much.

Works for me.

And lest we forget, this really is the first step toward a sane, single-payer system.

And the ACA is revealing the extent of it now.

as it is happening now, people will come, which they are doing, coming in droves. Medicare and SSI had a rocky start as well and were sabotaged to boot and guess who did it.

If he'd made the announcement back when the law was passed, people would have had time to prepare.

He said that the plan you had would still be in effect if you liked it. Not everyone needs comprensive insurance. Some people like their plan. It meets their needs, and they're not paying for something they don't want. A 60 year old woman doesn't need contraceptive or maternity coverage, and she probably doesn't want to pay for it.
Obama could have said "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, as long as it meets the standards we put in the law. Hell, you might not use half of what we want to put in there. But you'll pay for it, by golly."

It wouldn't have gotten passed.

Why does PBO keep giving so many interviews? It is past time for him to zip his lips shut. Morning joe will have a field day with this interview in the am. He needs to keep them guessing.

you can get a better plan with the ACA - one that will actually cover you for all health problems.

reportedly,
many people are being offered the same or worse
deductible, at twice the price,
but with maternity coverage.

lots of people do not think
that is better

But no one is apologizing for THAT.

No one in the individual market is worse off because of the ACA. NO ONE. The law prevents those people from being dropped when they're sick and prevents pre-existing condition exclusions. And now they have a marketplace where insurers are forced to compete and can only sell actual insurance, not scams--which is what those old $50 a month policies were. They covered nothing.

Complaining that you couldn't keep your old scam policy is idiotic.

do some research yourself

It was very obvious that insurance companies will exploit the shit out of ACA, after all they wrote it. Was anyone really naive enough to think ACA was really about providing healthcare? If yes, please do have a look at the Tower Bridge across the Thames I have for sale...

or

Sorry your shitty employer is taking advantage of the new law to drop having to pay for insurance

or

Sorry you lost your shitty insurance that would never have covered a damn thing for you and charged you too much money

The ACA clearly spelled out in 2010 the things that would be required of ALL insurance policies going forward. It was the insurance companies that refused to alter their bad policies but instead decided not to change them until forced to in 2013, thus insuring that they would continue to haul in more profits for a few years before the marketplace came on line in 2013 and they had to alter the policies that no longer comported with the requirements of the law. Maybe Obama thought the insurance companies, in order to keep some of their customers, would change the no longer admissible parts of their bad policies before the roll-out of the exchanges. The insurance companies are pretty clearly trying to shift the blame.

and therefore should have been obvious to the Administration. The promise could have been that if your POS insurance company drops you, you will get a better deal by taking advantage of the ACA. Instead the fact that insurers are scum was totally ignored. This isn't the first time that the Administration has struck me as extremely naïve, but whatever. It could have been handled differently and now Dems will pay the price, in the short term at least.

Edited to say, by "POS" I do not mean "point of service."

And what was the insurance company supposed to do? They could send the letter that said "Starting January 1st, your policy will be brought up to the standards set forth in the ACA, but your price will triple. You can either stick with us, or you can go to the market place."
The end result would have been the same. People that were in policies that met their needs at a price they could afford would lose that. They would now be in policies that were way more than they wanted.
I like to use cable TV as an analogy for this: Someone has basic cable for $18/mo. They don't watch much TV. Just network stuff and PBS. Then along comes the law that says they have to get digital cable with a $10 box and all the premium channels for $100/mo. Something else in their life is going to have to give at some point. Even with subsidies they aren't going to be able to get down to what they were paying for basic TV. They might watch a show or two on discovery now that they have it. Hell, they might as well, now that they have no choice but to pay for it. But they are not eating as well. They are having to struggle with other bills. Or they'll just go without TV entirely and pay the fine. All because some busybody in Washington wanted to "enrich" their lives.

C'mon BO, you're going to have to do something about this. Otherwise, you're law will get repealed in 2016.