Real care

    By Flavius on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 8:38am |


    Today's TPM describes a couple whose infant died but take time to remark that due to the ACA  at least they don't have to deal with staggering medical bills. 

     

     


    Which prompts me to add my comments on the roll out of the ACA . Unlike the media and the Obama haters (thanks Wattree) rather than considering the roll out as a disaster I consider it almost remarkably successful.

    The introduction was supposed to start on Oct 1 and it took 60 days more than that.In 50 years in business I seldom  observed a new product introduction better than that.  I recently read an account of Steve Jobs on a stage describing a coming Apple device while back stage his associates groaned because they knew that many of the features Jobs was praising were yet to be tested.

    Personally  I once was on one of those morning TV shows to describe/defend a new product. Unfortunately ,it was running behind schedule (of course). Perhaps coached by our competitor , who was also on the show, the attractive hostess asked "But where can't we get it,Flavius ?".I replied  "Well a year ago everywhere would have been where you  couldn't get it".


     
     

    Comments

    I'd agree with you mostly, except to add that what you're describing is typical of big companies. (See also The Mythical Man-Month.) I've worked at small companies (< 40 people, with fewer than half a dozen actively involved in development) my entire professional life (about 20 years in this field) and have never had a product delayed by that long. Typically we hit our delivery dates right on schedule. We're occasionally a day late, and I always end up asking what could we do better next time to stay on schedule?


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 10:02am

    We had the blue screen of death for years on Windows PCs. Here is one take on pessimism


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 10:03am

    I like it. Acknowledging and praising the progress we've made is not the same as being blind to the changes we still need to make.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 10:26am

    Agree


    by Flavius on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 10:28am

    Is there any reasonable excuse for Microsoft...after having developed and put out many, many OS...to put out one or two that were utter bombs? Not just bombs from a marketing standpoint, but from a technical standpoint?

    And then, even with the successful ones, to have to follow up the launch with innumerable patches and fixes?

    My wife used to have trouble buying a new PC because she wanted the older MS operating system she liked and not the new one that was awful and came standard on all the new machines.

    I see what VA says about small v large companies. But isn't also the case that a company like MS has the resources to devote whole divisions to nothing but testing an OS before launch?

    I work for a one-person company--me--so what do I know?

    FWIW, Macs don't die, they just get superseded by better models. My 512K still works as well as it ever did.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 11:25am

    Are you familiar with the concepts in The Mythical Man Month? (Ignoring the gender assumptions in its title, of course.) QA can do all the testing it wants, and I'm convinced that MS often knows it has lots of bugs in the products it releases. However, does it wait for all of the (known) bugs to be fixed before releasing that code (which could likely add another year to the release date), or does it say "good enough" and send it out the door? I have a Mac myself, and although I occasionally love me some good MS-hating, I take it about as seriously as hating on my undergrad's school's nemesis. It's a sport, it's entertainment, but not much more than that. I'm constantly cursing at my Mac's beach-ball, and I have had it completely freeze up more than once. That said, I'd be lying if I didn't say I thought it was a lot more reliable than any OS released by MS. So, there I go waffling again…

    Edit to add: Unix has the right philosophy with a lot of small programs that can pipe inputs and outputs to each other. Small businesses often design excellent small(ish) items which can be ground-breaking.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 11:56am

    It says "good enough" and sends it out the door and fixes it along the way. As far as I can tell.

    Haven't seen too many heads roll for turning those millions of captive Windows users into guinea pigs.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 12:14pm

    Only someone who will never have to use this "product" could possibly call this roll out  a success. If any tech company had botched a product introduction like the ACA so many heads would have rolled, blood would have flowed  from the front doors of corp headquarters. Now that the sign-up system is functioning, no one claims it works well,  the failures of the actual program are becoming evident. Not enough people are signing up for the program and the age distribution is skewed towards older people which unbalances the risk pool. Twenty percent of the enrollees have failed to pay their first installment so they are not even in the program anymore. The next revelation, that Obamacare Lovers will have to spin, will expose the crap insurance policies people have been forced to buy. I wonder if the Dems will use the dead baby and the financially relieved parents you mention above to tout their "success" in the next election. Personal anecdote,  my brother was refused Obamacare coverage, he met all qualifications, he was instructed to sign up for Medicaid, which he doesn't qualify for and he will now be fined for not having coverage, great program, excellent execution.


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 12:06pm

    If you consider it diverted our attention from the more pressing issues facing our society at the time.   Jobs Jobs, Jobs   It was definitely a success.

    Instead of focusing our attention on the crooks of Wall street, Obama put forth a carrot to divert our using a stick, to strike those deserving of punishment. 


    by Resistance on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 12:44pm

    40 million uninsured is a symptom of predatory Capitalism just as the lack of good jobs is, so I don't see the ACA as a diversion but more as a blueprint for more Capitalist penetration into the public sector. It must be made to appear successful because it is the model for the future of the safety net, more private profit and control with public subsidy and mandate herding the consumer into the voracious jaws of the Beast.


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 5:20pm

    That's interesting. My brother, an independent truck driver, has saved $900 a month on his new insurance and gotten better insurance in the bargain. Another friend has saved $800 and also gotten better insurance.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 8:26pm

    The ACA is up, it's working.It avoided the added pain of a painful hospital bill for the couple discussed today on TPM.

    That was a success.

    Could/will the ACA be improved in the future? Yes/maybe.

    Meanwhile that couple benefitted and I'm delighted for that and them.And we all should be..   


    by Flavius on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 1:13pm

    I guess you didn't read the TPM article very closely Flav since it says nothing about this couple being insured under the ACA, they already have good insurance.. They are Democrat operatives who are pimping their dead baby to promote Enroll America a front group hoping to register new voters for the Dem party after enrolling them in the ACA. I'm glad you posted this because it shows the depraved depths Dem operatives will descend to to sell their wares.


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 6:07pm

    I think you're conflating the ACA with the health insurance marketplace.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 7:42pm

    .. 

     

     


    by Flavius on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 8:02pm

    Breathe.


    by Flavius on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 8:02pm

    being insured under the ACA, they already have good insurance..

    First of all, NO ONE gets insured "under the ACA." The ACA doesn't insure anyone. You still don't understand this. Second, the article doesn't say whether they got their insurance through an exchange or not. This is a bit of your usual lying.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 8:23pm

    I know you are having trouble comprehending this complicated program, PS but you don't need to shout and call names. Most everyone knows that these exchanges are government run sites designed to enact the mandates of the ACA and assist people in purchasing private insurance along with applying for subsidies. They would not exist without the ACA nor would the penalties for noncompliance and people can only get access to the subsidies through them, at least for now. Since the smiling couple with the dead baby made no claim that they got their insurance through an exchange but did make a promotion for Enroll America and for others to use the exchanges, my comment stands.


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 10:38pm

    Yadda yadda yadda yadda . . .

    I read the entire TPM article...

    My takeaway on it is that I personally see this couple as pointing out that due to having coverage, whether it was through the marketplace or not, afforded them to NOT to have to go though what so many uninsured have gone through in the past.

    I see these young folks pointing to the ACA system as affording people the ability, for those who DO wish to gain coverage, that the coverage is now available to them through the marketplace and on a much more level playing field, so to speak.

    BTW ... Why don't you have your "brother" come in and personally tell us the story about being "...refused Obamacare coverage." Second hand anecdotes, nightmare scenarios and unverifiable hearsay doesn't cut it.

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 4:48am

    It appears you have a similar problem comprehending simple statements  as  PS ,OGD. I was responding to Flav's statement " The ACA is up, it's working it avoided the added pain of a painful hospital bill for the couple discussed at TPM" This is a clear, if incorrect, statement. I assumed that he hadn't read the whole article since it required following a link and the headline inferred the ACA connection. Using all caps in a comment is considered yelling on line, FYI and writing that someone is lying calling someone a hypocrite and a troll is name calling in any format. Since you infer that I am also lying about my brother's Catch 22 situation I would be wasting my time responding to your drivel, although I just did.


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 03/09/2014 - 11:21am

    I dunno, Peter, your usual arrogance in commenting led you to say, "You haven't read the article closely..."

    Except upon an actual close reading of the article, it doesn't at all say what you claim it says. It says nothing about whether they got their insurance through an exchange or whether they had it before, bought it outside an exchange, or had it through their employer. Your comment stands, alongside most of your others, only inside your head.

    But even if we grant your statement, arguendo, and it could be true, it's hardly a case of "depravity," as you also claim. OGD has it right on this point. It's worth it, financially, to be insured, and if the ACA helps you get that peace of mind, great. You should have your brother call my brother.

    All the blather about "government-run" sites is beside the point here and kinda sorta outs you as a troll.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 11:10am

    Hey Peter Schwartz... You have more patience that I do . . .

    After reading his first two sentences I was initially going to tell him to shove a sock in his piehole...

    "...I know you are having trouble comprehending this complicated program, PS but you don't need to shout and call names."

    And I'm still trying to find where you (Peter Schwartz)  were shouting and calling him names.

    Maybe in an alternate universe?

    Cue... Twilight Zone music...

    ~OGD~

    .


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 12:36pm

    He's sort of copy-catting just criticisms of his approach leveled at him elsewhere.

    His online MO...as he explained it to MW elsewhere...is to get nasty with folks as a way of getting them to reveal themselves as hypocrites, evil thinkers, and various other sorts of malefactors. He regards politesse as beneath a straight-shooting something or other such as himself.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 1:08pm

    My operating assumption is that every one who posts here

    A-does it  good faith ,and

    B wants roughly the same thing as me.At  a minimum

    o full employment with a minimum wage  which would support a family

    o a National Health System like those in Europe

    o no use of torture, and no capital punishment

    o universal PreK  

    Where I(maybe we) differ from Peter- no- name is in  our (or at least my )belief that in general Obama wants those same things.But they're not easy.     

     

    by Flavius on Sun, 03/09/2014 - 10:25pm

    Peter Schwartz... Oh... Okay I see...  . . .

    He simply likes dropping in to blow hot smoke out of his asteroid-orifice.

    If calling him out on that is being a hypocrite, sign me up.

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 03/09/2014 - 1:51am

    Latest Comments