"the Washington Examiner is a conservative tabloid founded in 2005 by Philip Anschutz"
That's a bullshit argument ... especially since we aren't likely to get any good dirt from the cheer-leading part of the MSM (almost all of it minus Fox, which at last count Jay Carney is refusing to call on, rather telling, that, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page).
A good argument is from a right winger like me, who from experience says that aside from the columns from major figures like Michael Barone, Washington Examiner is a very low quality rag. To the point that if I see an item linked to on e.g. Drudge, if I notice it's to them, I don't follow it. Just about any major entity on the right is better, save perhaps the Red State web site.
On the other hand, this actually isn't the typical report that entirely depends on unnamed sources. It has several from the inside, speaking with specificity, plus one who's able to go on record who used different methods comes to the same basic conclusion about who's the integrator.
Here's https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6572467 a much better/more reliable account from the Right, echoing the CMMS did the integration meme (which apparently first came from the New York Times), and at the end of this long piece the author looks at possible consequences.
Particularly the "danger of a rapid adverse selection spiral", that is, the people who will put up with a very difficult site are the ones who really need healthcare, whereas the "The healthy young man who sees an ad for his state exchange during a baseball game and loads up the site to get coverage—the dream consumer so essential to the design of the exchange system—will not keep trying 25 times over a week if the site is not working."
Also how fixing the upfront/front end problems will exacerbate what look to be some bad back end problems, particularly the calculation of subsidies, which all the state exchanges depend upon. Ah, and according to the 3 insurance types he talked to, they "believe that only Nevada, Colorado, Washington state, and Kentucky have what could reasonably be described as working systems at this point.", although in general they're in better shape than the federal one.
Comments
"the Washington Examiner is a conservative tabloid founded in 2005 by Philip Anschutz"
That's a bullshit argument ... especially since we aren't likely to get any good dirt from the cheer-leading part of the MSM (almost all of it minus Fox, which at last count Jay Carney is refusing to call on, rather telling, that, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page).
A good argument is from a right winger like me, who from experience says that aside from the columns from major figures like Michael Barone, Washington Examiner is a very low quality rag. To the point that if I see an item linked to on e.g. Drudge, if I notice it's to them, I don't follow it. Just about any major entity on the right is better, save perhaps the Red State web site.
On the other hand, this actually isn't the typical report that entirely depends on unnamed sources. It has several from the inside, speaking with specificity, plus one who's able to go on record who used different methods comes to the same basic conclusion about who's the integrator.
Here's https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6572467 a much better/more reliable account from the Right, echoing the CMMS did the integration meme (which apparently first came from the New York Times), and at the end of this long piece the author looks at possible consequences.
Particularly the "danger of a rapid adverse selection spiral", that is, the people who will put up with a very difficult site are the ones who really need healthcare, whereas the "The healthy young man who sees an ad for his state exchange during a baseball game and loads up the site to get coverage—the dream consumer so essential to the design of the exchange system—will not keep trying 25 times over a week if the site is not working."
Also how fixing the upfront/front end problems will exacerbate what look to be some bad back end problems, particularly the calculation of subsidies, which all the state exchanges depend upon. Ah, and according to the 3 insurance types he talked to, they "believe that only Nevada, Colorado, Washington state, and Kentucky have what could reasonably be described as working systems at this point.", although in general they're in better shape than the federal one.
Your quotation from my post doesn't reveal an argument of any kind. It's simply a sourced fact stated plainly.