« | »

O-Care Implementation Now Longer Than WWII

From National Review:

An Obamacare Milestone

By Ed Haislmaier | December 18, 2013

This week Obamacare passed an unflattering milestone. As of today, the Obama administration has spent longer botching the implementation of Obamacare than the Roosevelt and Truman administrations spent fighting and winning the Second World War.

America’s involvement in World War II began on December 7, 1941, with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It ended 1,365 days later on September 2, 1945, with the surrender ceremony aboard the U.S.S. Missouri anchored in Tokyo Bay.

President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010. Today, December 18, 2013, marks the 1,366th day of post-enactment Obamacare implementation…

So are we going to have to drop a couple of A-Bombs to finish the job? (Paging Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.)

Meanwhile, the geniuses running the Obama-Care website have decided to change servers in March, before the end of the enrollment period. Which even Reuters thinks is a crazy idea.

From Reuters:

Obamacare tech hurdle looms right before enrollment deadline

By Roberta Rampton and Sharon Begley | December 18, 2013

(Reuters) – Some technical experts are perplexed at the U.S. government’s plan to switch web hosts for its new health insurance portal, HealthCare.gov, in the midst of an expected last-minute rush to beat a March 31 enrollment deadline for 2014 coverage.

Switching hosts is not in and of itself a huge risk if it is done carefully and with lots of preparation, according to technical experts interviewed by Reuters. It is the timing of the highly complex maneuver that is risky. If there are problems, the website could become sluggish or even unusable for anyone trying to enroll…

But, on the other hand, it will give the administration another excuse for low sign-up numbers.

The timing of the change in host services "is nonsensical in all dimensions," said Peter Neupert, who managed similar transitions when he ran drugstore.com, a website he took public in 1999, and while working as a corporate vice president at Microsoft Corp.

"Why would you plan for a big transition six months after going live?" said Neupert, now an operating partner with Health Evolution Partners, a private equity firm that invests in health companies..

The Obama administration says Terremark’s contract expires on March 30, the day before the 2014 enrollment deadline. It is not clear why the Obama administration chose to end the contract during the enrollment period…

Could it possibly be because the people in charge are incompetent? And because they have never run anything in the real world besides their mouths?

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, December 19th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “O-Care Implementation Now Longer Than WWII”

  1. Rusty Shackleford

    So are we going to have to drop a couple of A-Bombs to finish the job?

    Too late, Dingy Harry already exploited the “nuclear option” a month ago.

  2. captstubby

    while we are speaking of WW2;

    69 years ago,

    on December 27 1944,
    FDR seizes control of Montgomery Ward.

    “the terms of three different collective bargaining agreements took any worker hiring or firing out of managements hands.”
    Chairman Sewell Avery

    ” as World War II dragged on, President Franklin D. Roosevelt orders his secretary of war to seize properties belonging to the Montgomery Ward company because the company refused to comply with a labor agreement.

    In an effort to avert strikes in critical war-support industries, Roosevelt created the National War Labor Board in 1942. The board negotiated settlements between management and workers to avoid shut-downs in production that might cripple the war effort. During the war, the well-known retailer and manufacturer Montgomery Ward had supplied the Allies with everything from tractors to auto parts to workmen’s clothing–items deemed as important to the war effort as bullets and ships. However, Montgomery Ward Chairman Sewell Avery refused to comply with the terms of three different collective bargaining agreements with the United Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union hammered out between 1943 and 1944. In April 1944, after Sewell refused a second board order, Roosevelt called out the Army National Guard to seize the company’s main plant in Chicago. Sewell himself had to be carried out of his office by National Guard troops. By December of that year, Roosevelt was fed up with Sewell’s obstinacy and disrespect for the government’s authority. On December 27, Roosevelt ordered the secretary of war to seize Montgomery Ward’s plants and facilities in New York, Michigan, California, Illinois, Colorado and Oregon.

    In his announcement that day, Roosevelt emphasized that the government would “not tolerate any interference with war production in this critical hour.” He issued a stern warning to labor unions and industry management alike: “strikes in wartime cannot be condoned, whether they are strikes by workers against their employers or strikes by employers against their Government.” Sewell took the fight to federal court, but lost.”
    http://iconicphotos.wordpress......hrown-out/

    Background.

    The National War Labor Board of World War II

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t.....LrtyyKw4mg

    Leiserson was convinced that the War Labor Board would fall flat. Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to allow the Board to evaluate each case on its merits ensured failure. Although labor and business leaders pledged to not call strikes or lockout workers, the large majority of employers in America still insisted on maintaining an “open shop” in their operations, a stance utterly unacceptable to union leaders, who insisted on 100% union membership wherever they had contracts. None of the corporate executives who Roosevelt invited to the Presidential Labor-Management Conference after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Clark Field would accept that demand, not even those whose own firms dealt with unions .
    Roosevelt salvaged the December 1941 conference by terming the employers’ and union leaders’ no-strike/no-lockout pledges and their promise to co-operate with the National War Labor Board a triumph, but Leiserson was not fooled. There is “no essential difference” between the National Defense Mediation Board which had collapsed in November 1941 and the new Board, he told the audience. “One was a mediation board that arbitrated; the other is an arbitration board that mediates.” The problem is that the administration had given the new War Labor Board “no guiding wage policy or union-shop policy” on which to base its decisions. “Decisions . . . will appear and, in fact, are likely to be arbitrary and capricious,”
    Leiserson called on the President to re-convene the December 1941 conference of labor and management leaders. If they refused to compromise, the Congress must act “promptly and drastically,” for “the problems are too big and too crucial” for the National War Labor Board to solve.

    The Board chairman, Will Davis, delegated that job to George Taylor, …promising young professors and recent graduates from the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Wisconsin, Harvard University, and other universities with faculty who specialized in labor relations. After brief training in Washington, the Board sent their new recruits to centers of industry to work as mediators and to set up regional war labor boards. The Board ultimately created thirteen such boards covering all part of the nation.
    Taylor appointed their most promising young staffers as chairmen of the regional war labor board—Saul Wallen to Boston, Ted Kheel to New York, Lew Gill to Cleveland, and Clark Kerr to Seattle and San Francisco, for example, and put John Dunlop in charge of the Wage Adjustment Board for building and construction. “I was scared to death,” Davis remembered in 1955, “because there wasn’t anybody [who] knew anything about these peculiar operations of the War Labor Board except the people who’d been through it. These were procedures that had never existed before. . . . So what we did was, we stripped ourselves of the young men who had been with us from the start. . . . and who were really carrying on our activities and knew about it. . . . We sent these kids out.”
    When U.S. Steel and the Little Steel management rejected the Steelworkers’ demand for “union security,” as the union termed their demand, the War Labor Board’s chairman Will Davis proposed a compromise which he called “maintenance-of-membership.” Under that compromise, newly-hired workers would have a choice whether to join the union or not. If they did join, they would be obliged to remain dues-paying members until the contract expired, at which point all members would again have the choice whether to continue as members or not. That would guarantee steady stream of dues for the union while satisfying the management’s demand of freedom of choice for employees. The corporations also rejected this idea. “This company is opposed to it [a maintenance-of-membership plan] or any other form of closed shop, no matter what it is called nor how it is camouflaged,” Republic Steel management declared. Inland Steel’s president decried “maintenance-of-membership” as “simply a device for bringing about a closed shop. . . .. [I]t furnishes no means of protecting employees from being coerced into signing up, and once they have signed up they cannot withdraw.”
    the four executives on the Board declared that they could not endorse any national policy which, in their words “compels any unwilling employer to force an unwilling employee either to join or to remain a member of a labor union in order to play his part in winning this war.” In another NWLB case decided in April the four businessmen questioned “whether it is the function of this administrative board to impose upon an employer conditions which require him to discharge even a single employee because of a failure to maintain union membership.” “If, for some valid reason, a man wishes to withdraw from a union [at any time during the life of a contract], he should be permitted to honorably do so without losing his job,”




« Front Page | To Top
« | »