ObamaCare Redux

November 27th, 2013 7:30 am | by John Jansen |

The Obama Administration had promised that it would repair the woeful incompetence evident at the roll out of ObamaCare with the malfunctioning website. The promise was that the repaired and rehabilitated sight would handle a load of traffic by November 30. The Administration is hedging its bets on that bold prediction as it urges its allies to not go full bore on driving traffic to the site. I would ask rhetorically if you can recall a private company requesting traffic to refrain from visiting a site. It may have happened but I can not think of such an instance especially on one launched amidst promises and fanfare.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. 5 Responses to “ObamaCare Redux”

  2. By Nick on Nov 27, 2013 | Reply

    Uh, how about any web software which releases an alpha and a closed beta version? That is, any product by any web software company who knows what they’re doing. You might not be able to think of a specific example, but that’s because of your unfamiliarity with software development.

    I think healthcare.gov should have gone through a closed release, but I don’t know how to handle the politics on something like that. Still, no, there aren’t any competent web software companies that want maximum visitors on the first day they go live.

  3. By BananaGuard on Nov 27, 2013 | Reply

    Oh, no! Based on this, I have to sell,…hang on, I should buy,…sevens?, no wait, short bills? What?

    Silly me, I thought this might have something to do with the bond market, since this purports to be a bond market blog. Turns out, this is just more half-baked regurgitation of political jabber that somebody else thought up. Not new. Not well thought-out. Not useful. No wonder I spend so little time here.

  4. By John Jansen on Nov 27, 2013 | Reply

    Thank you for your comment.And have a great Thanksgiving.

    And for the record the twenty four posts here preceding that one were bond market related. The 25th which was not bond market related was Stratfor on Iran. It seems that you have a penchant to moan when the non market stuff has the word Obama in it.

  5. By BananaGuard on Nov 27, 2013 | Reply

    That “Obama” comment is a bit dishonest, given what you know about my views. If you were in the habit of offering shallow political comment about Republicans, I would object to that, as well. Since all I’ve seen from you is shallow political comment about Democrats, that’s all I’ve had to respond to. If you’ve posted comments complaining about Republicans, or even better, if you’ve posted comments making substantive objections to Democratic policies, please point to them.

    Since you choose to mislead other readers of this blog by suggesting my objection is partisan, I will repeat the substance of what I wrote here once before. I come from a Republican family. I worked for a Republican member of Congress and a Republican Lt. Governor. I have only every worked on political campaigns for Republicans. My objection to your political commentary is not that you are giving Democrats a hard time. It’s that what you write is all as vapid as what you have posted here. There is lots to complain about in the substance Democrats’ policies, but you have come nowhere near substance.

    There is a problem with our politics. A big part of that problem is that many of us can’t see past party labels in order to have an intelligent thought about substance. You, for instance, seem incapable of seeing past party labels. That inability clouds your thinking. Here you are again, suggesting that it is loyalty to the Democratic Party that drives my comments, even though I have made clear to you my life-long connection to the Republican Party. It’s like you have a stupid-switch in your head when it comes to politics. (For more evidence regarding the stupid-switch, see Nick’s comment.)

    You think badly about politics. That’s not a partisan statement. That’s a reason for you to avoid writing about politics.

  6. By John Jansen on Nov 27, 2013 | Reply

    Thanks for your insight.

Post a Comment