Website bugs prove government is wrong for health care business
Earlier this month, all “non-essential” parts of the federal government were shut down because President Obama declared that immediate implementation of the Affordable Care Act was “non-negotiable.” Now all of the federal government is back in business — except, because of the website meltdown, for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The irony cannot go unremarked.
In Monday’s [Oct. 21] speech, in which Obama declared his frustration with the performance of the ACA website, he upped the irony level. Among his litany of the wonderful things Obamacare has wrought was his assertion that, instead of searching for health insurance in many different places, people could come to a single site and see all the different plans the government approves of. He seemed oblivious to the fact that the reason he had to make the speech was that people couldn’t.
In the same speech, Obama cited the website’s 20 million visitors as proof that America needs Obamacare. He also cited as proof the fact that 500,000 people had successfully applied. The former statistic, of course, proves only curiosity. If the 20 million were really there to sign up, what they would prove is a 2.5 percent success rate.
Unless we find substantial Obama campaign contributions from the incompetents who built the website, I won’t beat up the president for its catastrophic performance. However, the incident underscores one problem with any governmental “solution,” as opposed to a market solution: When they fail, you can’t take your business down the street.
I don’t expect the rest of Obamacare to be the disaster that its website has been, but undisciplined by market forces, it will be permanently buggy.
Pan a show, but let readers decide whether to go
In regard to Amy Durant’s Oct. 20 review of Schenectady Civic Player’s current production, “Mornings at Seven,” I take exception to one of her comments.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion; however, to come out and tell people not to see a show is going too far. People should be able to read a review if they need to, and decide for themselves.
A comment like Ms. Durant made is hurtful and detrimental to the company.
Adirondack communities favor ballot propositions
The Adirondacks are New York’s environmental jewel, a vacation destination for people from across our state, and home to tens of thousands of people who work and raise their families here.
By voting yes for Propositions 4 and 5, New Yorkers will expand the Adirondack Forest Preserve and open new lands for public recreation; help preserve 100 jobs in an area where they are sorely needed; and clear up unfortunate property title disputes that have lingered for more than a century for homeowners, local businesses and community organizations.
Perhaps the best thing is that we can accomplish all this at no cost to taxpayers.
As local government representatives in the region most directly impacted by these propositions, we respectfully ask voters across the state to join our communities in supporting these two propositions. Proposition 4 would resolve disputed property titles in Long Lake that date from the 1800s and, in doing so, add great new recreational lands to the Forest Preserve. A statewide ballot is required to formalize a resolution that has already been agreed to by the parties involved.
Proposition 5 would add 1,500 acres to the Preserve and protect 100 Adirondack jobs through a land swap that will allow a local mining company to temporarily extend its operations onto 200 acres of remote Forest Preserve land that adjoins the company’s existing mine. Once the mining work is completed, the 200 acres would be reclaimed, replanted and returned to the Preserve, while the 1,500 acres will remain in state ownership.
Propositions 4 and 5 are win-win propositions. That’s why environmental, government, labor and business organizations, and community leaders across New York are encouraging voters to vote yes for the Adirondacks. You can learn more at www.voteyesfortheadirondacks.com.
William G. Farber
Randall T. Douglas
The writers are, respectively, chairman of the Hamilton County Board of Supervisors and the Essex County Board of Supervisors.
2 deputies not needed for town court security
Re Oct. 24 letter, “Preserve Princetown town court security” by Town Justice Michelle A. VanWoeart: First, she claimed harassment, along with the town clerk, because they are female, [an argument] found to be baseless and thrown out.
Now she’s bellyaching about security at town court. Mr. [Supervisor Mike] Joyce has said an outside firm can do the job at a better price then the deputies, so let’s do it; only one should be needed for the job.
VanWoeart needs to get over herself — enough already.
The deadline for election letters is Tuesday, Oct. 29. We will continue to run selected letters on local races through Thursday, Oct. 31 in the online edition.