Larry

Read them before I posted. (I do that, you see.) Yes, I'm aware of that. Remember the progression? 1) You make the claim that earlier in the thread, I commented about mom's prescription costs, you responded with "truth and facts", and I "disappeared" (Immediately after announcing that "[You] have posted nothing but facts".) 2) I asked you to support this claim. 3) You respond by quoting a post of mine in which I pointed out that medical expenses are tax deductible. 4) I point out this fact. 5) You respond by pointing out that I mentioned Mom's prescriptions in another post. (Note that, as of now, your claims: Of me posting about Mom's prescription costs, you responding with "truth and facts", and me "disappearing", none have stood up. In fact, it's been pointed out that all three claims are false.) But, let's look at the previous discussion which you've chosen to describe as me posting about mom's prescriptions, you responding with "truth and facts", and me "disappearing". The actual exchange is: 1) You make the claim: [My emphasis] 2) I ask the question: (I intentionally didn't quote you, because I felt it would be less confrontational, and because I feel I've seen the claim made several times, previously, and didn't feel like going back and seeing if several people had made it, or if it was you, making the same claim multiple times.) 3) Your response: (Again, my emphasis.) 4) Again, my response: 5) When I point out that you're moving the goalposts, your response is to make another claim: 6) At which time, I point out that your third claim in the progression is incorrect, too. And in two ways: 7) At which, you then respond that you didn't make that third claim, and proceed to make your fourth, fifth, and sixth: Funny, I see several. Funny, the reason you brought this conversation back up, was your description of is as me bringing up mom's prescriptions, you responding with "truths and facts", and I "disappeared". ---------- But let's drop your attempt to rewrite ancient history, and stick to today. In just the last couple of posts, you've gone from referring to this conversation as: To: Two hours to go from claiming I bailed because my facts supported your claim, to claiming that you made no claim, I asked a question and you answered. A dance and shift routine which you arrived at, probably eight hours and 20 posts after jumping in and attacking me out of the blue with an attempt to claim that I won't criticize the web sites. (After I have already done so, multiple times.) I'm gonna click post, and leave for a while. (Gotta listen to us get embarrassed for at least the first quarter.)

You might, if you look closely, observe that the word "prescriptions" do not appear anywhere within that post. "I bailed out"? Of the next 10 posts, after the one you quoted, 3 are from me, and 6 are from you. "as [my] facts supported [your] claims"? Your claims went from claiming that paying your insurance deductible isn't tax deductible, to claiming that well, they're deductible, but only if they exceed a portion of your income, to saying that nursing home care isn't a health care expense. (Well, that's if you don't pay attention to your claims that my parents are rich, and that they're getting 35% of their money back, which I chose not to challenge because I really don't feel like posting a bunch of irrelevant things that aren't any of your business to begin with, just so I can demonstrate how another one of the things you made up to attack me with, wasn't true, either.) Please, tell me which of your "claims" "my facts supported".

Really? Could you please cite your authority to announce your ability to read my mind? I'm kinda curious. Your posts would appear to suggest otherwise. Rather strongly, in fact. Uh, I'm a bit curious as to this posts in which I discussed the cost of my mom's prescription drug medications. Frankly, I don;t even know the cost of my mom's prescription drug medications. I'd have to grab her tax return off the shelf (or pull it up from the computer) to even find out what it was. I'm also curious as to this mythical conversation in which 1) I said something about the cost of Mom's medications, 2) And you knew more about the price of her medications than I did. So, if you find some place where this conversation took place, could you be so kind as to tell me where you managed to obtain your "truths and facts" of the price of her medications? Thanks. Does . . . . . . count as "next time"? Or does it have to be in a subsequent post?

Funny, I've said absolutely nothing of the kind. However, you have come kinda close to my point, and I didn't actually come out and state it. Yes, I have no doubt that the form is probably overly simplistic, especially for special-case applicants. And I'm not surprised at all that the help desk people are poorly trained to help said special-case applicants. And yes, I think it's a legit complaint, despite the "it's brand new" excuses. Small business owners are supposedly one of the targets which this system is supposedly designed to help, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to have planned for that segment.

You haven't mentioned any facts, and are either delusional or dishonest as to my beliefs. (My money's on the latter.) So, if you're waiting for my sympathy for how tough it is, then please, just imagine that you have it.

Chip, actually responding to what people say doesn't mean you can't be on ES. (It just, apparently, means you can't be Republican.) You should try responding to what people actually say.

So, your point is that the web pages aren't as complicated as a 1040?

deleted post.

I remember once watching an episode of Siskel and Ebert, where they were reviewing several of the movies that were going to be coming out next summer. But, they weren't reviewing the movies. (They hadn't seen them, yet.) They were reviewing the trailers for the movies. And one of the things that they complained about, which they blamed on the huge costs of stunts and special effects, was how much of the movie they showed, in the trailers. Their explanation was that the producer of the film might wind up spending 1/10 of his movie's total budget on a stunt that may last five seconds. This five second stunt may cost 10 million dollars, because he wants it to be bigger and louder and more spectacular that the biggest stunt of last year. And, when they spend all that money on that stunt, well, then, they have to put it in the trailer. Which means that, if you've seen the trailer, then you've already seen the three biggest scenes in the movie, before you even buy your ticket. One of the trailers they reviewed was for Beverley Hills Cop 2. They pointed out that half of the trailer was car chases and crashes and stunts. Well, that's pretty much the movie. Nobody's going to go see that movie for the plot, they want stunts and destruction. And they've already seen it. One of them proposed that the trailer they think they should have made, was Eddie Murphey, sitting in a chair, in an empty room. "You know, three years ago, I made this movie, Beverley Hills Cop. Had a lot of fun, did a bunch of stunts, made a pile of money. "Now, I'm making this new movie, Beverley Hills Cop 2. We're doing a lot of stunts, I'm having a lot of fun. "Will it be as good as the first one? Well, that's hard to say. Obviously, I haven't even seen it, myself, yet. It's not finished. So it's really hard to tell, for sure. "But, one thing I do know. "I'm gonna make a pile of money." (Cut to credits, with "the Eddie Murphy laugh" in the background.) This trailer, they say, announces the movie. It really tells you everything you need to know about the movie. (It's Beverley Hills Cop 2, and Eddie Murphy is in it.) And yet, it gives away absolutely nothing about the movie. They were discussing their favorite trailers. One which they mentioned was the trailer for a Hitch**** movie. The movie features a bunch of guests at a hotel, waking up and discovering that a murder took place, overnight. The trailer for this movie, was the murder. Hitchkock filmed the murder (without showing the killer) Knowing that it wouldn;t be in the movie. Just the trailer. I thought of this complaint, when I saw Casino Royalle. As soon as Bond chases somebody into a construction site, I knew that they were gonna wind up climbing the construction cranes, and that Bond was going to leap from one crane to another. Because I'd seen it in the trailer. OTOH, now that I look at trailers from this point of view, I have to say that I think the best trailer I've ever seen for a movie, was this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKtWhBtvHQU All it tells you is "Terminator 2", and "Schwarzenegger". (Well, it tells me that there can be more than one Terminator.) (And, that's all it has to tell me, to make me want to go see the movie.)

I seriously recommend the book. Now, the book has a really big, surprise ending. Reading it before you see the movie might ruin the movie's surprise. But then, I think the movie trailers might be giving away the surprise ending, anyway. (Is that confusing enough, yet?) Yeah, I think I'd recommend reading the book, before movie. (Partially because I really respect the book, and I'm not sure the movie will live up to it. I know that the movie took at least some shortcuts. For reasons that were necessary, and might not have hurt much. But I KNOW that the book "works".)

Just wondering: Are these famous problems happening only at the federal web site? Or are some of the state ones having similar problems? (And, do the state ones significantly interact with federal resources?).

Uh, . . . . .

Heck, that happens half the time I buy stuff on Amazon. ---------- I do want to say: Yes, it's normal for big, huge, IT projects to have some bugs when they roll out. But yeah, I think it's perfectly legitimate to complain about this one. Like I've pointed out, I think they had five years to get ready for it, and I think it was delayed twice. A few bugs is normal. But I think we all agree that this is a more than a few bugs.

Not all that surprising. I assume that insurance is a really big business, which takes a whole lot of money and backing, a ton of reserves, and the skill to manage them that RG3 wishes he had. Probably makes running a restaurant look easy, and we all know how many of those go under, when people start them.

I liked the Onion article that says Obama's rolling out a new update, on 35 floppys.

Chip, I knew when you responded, you would make up something I didn't say, and claim I said it.

Every BIG program has that problem.

ALL press conferences are for show. (That's kind of their purpose.) One of them, you object to. For being a press conference.

OT, anectodal story. Just thought it was funny. MANY years ago, a boss of mine (we're both IT guys) was talking about how things don;t always work as planned. Seems that the DOD implemented this MASSIVE IT project, which was going to simplify and unify the military's logistics. A huge undertaking. Not really an outrageously complicated program. But the amount of data was staggering. The mission: Tell a computer which units you need, where, and the computer will tell you the best places from which to draw all of the things which said units will need. In order to fulfill this objective, the computer had to be told every kind of unit the military has, and what kind of supplies that unit will need, in every possible deployment location. (The 82nd Airborne needs different supplies, in Egypt, than they'd need in Siberia.) It needed to know an inventory of every kind of transport which the military has, and the range, and capacity, of each transport. (And, the supplies which the transport, itself, needs.) And it has to have a complete inventory of every kind of supply which the military has, and where those supplies are. In order to match supplies to transports, the program needs to know the supply's weight, and it's size. (Because each transport is limited by both. Although a C-5 might be able to lift 75 tons, it can't lift 75 tons of ping pong balls, because 75 tons of ping pong balls won't fit in the plane.) It was a massive undertaking, generating all of the data which the relatively simple program needs, to do it's job. But, they get it all done. They manage to load all the data needed. They run a test. "I need to send 200 infantry troops to Iraq." The computer informs them that it has the optimum solution, and it will take 73 C-5 flights. This answer is grossly, obviously, wrong. ONE C-5 flight can deliver 200 troops, and a really staggering amount of gear, for them. So, they dig through the data. Eventually they discover the problem. One of the items in the list of equipment is a field tent, four person. (Think of the tent that Hawkeye and Trapper shared, on M*A*S*H.) Weight: 60 lbs. Size: 20' by 20' by 8'

So, 1) Fox News posts an interview, in which they have three people, all three of which are held up as examples of problems, and all three of which are making false claims. 2) Obama has a press conference, in which he has real people who claim to have been actually helped. (And which you do not dispute). And you attack the second one, for being fake? Have I got that right?

---------- Why was it awarded? Well, here in my state, it was awarded because our Republican governors saw an opportunity to block implementation of a law that the other team was gonna get credit for, and decided to that what's good for his team was more important than screwing their own citizens, forcing the feds to try to do the job which those states decided to try to block. Since you decided to ask about the "why", and all. ---------- "Let's Punt Till April"?

"Show press conferences". You know, the claim that the other side backed up. Who needs facts when you can make posts which consist entirely of claiming somebody else said something which he hasn't? Trying to figure out exactly which fact you're trying to establish, here. That the rollout stank? I think everybody agrees with that one.

It does seem reasonable, to me, for people to be disappointed with the rollout. I mean, the law was passed, what, five years ago? It's been delayed, what, twice? Yeah, no doubt the mission objectives got moved just a bit during that time. But, still. At least some complaining is justified, here. I asked Mary to support her claim concerning fake people. And it was backed up. Don't suppose you've got anything to back up your claim?

I haven't read anything about any "fakes". (Didn't think they needed any. I'll point out that I had problems with their web site, and gave up, and I guarantee I'm not fake.) You got any support for that claim?

That was really good, but might want a NSFW advisory, at the beginning.