Still want to sign up?
- Thread starter louixo
- Start date
The line in question was commented out in the source code, which means it's not actually part of the code. It's not something that people are (or were) agreeing to without their knowledge.
For one, HIPPA relates to medical information, of which the Web site doesn't ask. So the Web site is actually HIPPA compliant with or without that statement. Plus, the sentence is commented out, so it doesn't even apply to the page at all. Barton is more or less showing his gross ignorance on several levels with his questioning. His questioning also shows the gross incompetence on the side of the coders, though, since page source code is something the person sitting in the other chair (Cheryl Campbell) should be intimately familiar with even if she didn't personally code it, and should have at the very least been able to see plainly that it was commented out.
I wouldn't be surprised if a coder put that in there, commented out, as a joke. But that line, and several others have been removed. Also copyright language had to be added into the source code under the GPL license to properly attribute open-source code that was used in the coding. It's free software, but it has to include the license agreement in the code.
There's a reason why professional Website designers and coders have have unmercifully hammered the structure and coding of the site as amateurish and sloppy. Because it is.
For one, HIPPA relates to medical information, of which the Web site doesn't ask. So the Web site is actually HIPPA compliant with or without that statement. Plus, the sentence is commented out, so it doesn't even apply to the page at all. Barton is more or less showing his gross ignorance on several levels with his questioning. His questioning also shows the gross incompetence on the side of the coders, though, since page source code is something the person sitting in the other chair (Cheryl Campbell) should be intimately familiar with even if she didn't personally code it, and should have at the very least been able to see plainly that it was commented out.
I wouldn't be surprised if a coder put that in there, commented out, as a joke. But that line, and several others have been removed. Also copyright language had to be added into the source code under the GPL license to properly attribute open-source code that was used in the coding. It's free software, but it has to include the license agreement in the code.
There's a reason why professional Website designers and coders have have unmercifully hammered the structure and coding of the site as amateurish and sloppy. Because it is.
Last edited:
I had few problems signing up
I agree you could've called it ----care and it would've been screwed up..,
English translation please.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
English translation please.
Are you referring to "commented out"? Computer languages are simply text and most if not all of them have a provision for "commenting out" sections of code. This way coders can write in comments that explain what the code is doing in easy to understand English. A second use is for debugging. Any line that's commented out doesn't execute and coders sometimes use that to help identify problems.
Why even sign up? The polices are grossly over priced, cover little in real terms and REQUIRE coverage that is neither not needed or wanted.
As to privacy, only a FOOL would TRUST that ANY information given to a government web site to be safe. Governments, our's included, cannot be trusted. ANYTHING you put on there can, and very well could be, used to harm you. Put NOTHING past this, or any future administration, with your information.
As to privacy, only a FOOL would TRUST that ANY information given to a government web site to be safe. Governments, our's included, cannot be trusted. ANYTHING you put on there can, and very well could be, used to harm you. Put NOTHING past this, or any future administration, with your information.
On a computer using the Web browser (not gonna work using the phone app), right click on a blank spot on this page and select View Page Source. A window will pop up containing the source code for the page. You will see lots and lots of lines (if you scroll down far enough) beginning with a
<!
What follows the "<!" is a comment, rather than executable code.
Some languages, like BASIC, use the REM comment instead.
10 REM THIS BASIC PROGRAM SHOWS THE USE OF THE PRINT AND GOTO COMMANDS
20 REM USERS OF THESE FORUMS HAVE LITTLE OR NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, SO THERE
30 PRINT "EXPEDITERSONLINE"
40 GOTO to 30
When run, this program repeatedly prints the word EXPEDITERSONLINE in an infinite loop forever and ever amen. But lines 10 and 20 do not print, because they have been commented out.
They all did except for possibly HillaryCare, and she managed that about as well as Benghazi. But so long as we're speculating and offering hypotheticals, it would be safe to say that an administration with people that had real-world experience in executive management of large scale projects would have known how to find people from private industry (like Amazon) that would have the necessary expertise building and operating complicated websites.Very true. But many were smart enough to stay away from it.
I find it interesting how many are fixated on the failure of the web site and pay little if any attention to the millions who are losing coverage, to the high cost, low coverage plans they "claim" are better than what many had and the loss of choice and freedoms Obama Care is responsible for.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
That's probably due to the fact that most people that have done an analysis have concluded that for most people, the ACA means better coverage for the same money. A smaller number of people will get better coverage for even less money. For an even smaller number of people, it means better coverage for more money.
Apparently you fit into the last group and that truly sucks. But there are 330 million of us and sometimes what's better for most is what we have to do.
SO, it's OK to LIE to the American People and stick it their ear because it MAY be better for some? Would it not be better to be honest from the start and SAY that UNLESS you buy what you are TOLD to buy, whether you like or not, at a price that is what you are TOLD you are going to pay, you can't keep what you have? Would that not have been the TRUTH?
How about this one: It's NOT a tax, until we argue in the SC then it IS a tax? Good? Honest?
330 million doing better? Prove that. Prove the "47 million" they CLAIMED were with out insurance.
Why are you WILLING to accept being TOLD what coverage you need? Is that FREEDOM? Liberty? I assume that you also agree with redistribution of wealth, which is EXACTLY what this plan is? Is THAT enhancing FREEDOM? Is, what MAYBE, a better health care plan WORTH losing freedom? Worth giving up the right to chose what you want to own or not own?
I would LOVE to dig into the plans you are buying, read the EXTRA fine print and see what they REALLY cover. It would be fun.
I have a GREAT idea, since you are SO into redistribution of wealth, YOU pay the difference on my wife's plan, OR, explain to HER how losing her plan and not being able to afford the news plans is of benefit to HER, OR, the nation. My Senators won't explain it to her, may you can? Explain to her why a 60 year old woman needs maternity care, new born care or pediatric vision care. She can't have kids and our YOUNGEST son, one of two, who WE paid 100% of THEIR bills, as RESPONSIBLE ADULTS DO, is 36?
Fair? Right? Honest? Are you WILLING to accept lies from your government?
What should we tell the 100 MILLION that could lose there plans in 2015? That it's good for them too?
100 Million More Could Lose Insurance Under Obamacare
OH WAIT! Forbes says it will ONLY be 93 MILLION, I guess THAT's OK?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...e-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/
100 Million More Could Lose Insurance Under Obamacare
OH WAIT! Forbes says it will ONLY be 93 MILLION, I guess THAT's OK?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...e-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/
Last edited:
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
You're attributing a lot of things to me that I didn't say. What I DID say (or at least tried to say) is that part of being in a democracy is that every once in a while you're on the minority side of things and it can feel like you're being screwed. I tried to show some compassion for your situation. I might have failed, but I tried.
Isn't the very core of what makes a democracy work the fact that majority rules? If the majority is better served then that is almost always what we need to do. You disagree? On what grounds?
Isn't the very core of what makes a democracy work the fact that majority rules? If the majority is better served then that is almost always what we need to do. You disagree? On what grounds?
Is a government FORCED, redistribution of wealth, pure Marxism, plan good? Is that freedom? Is that liberty?
Compassion for my situation? Where? I don't NEED compassion, I need, honest, solid, affordable, solutions. I need what we had, or better, at the same price, or less. NOTHING else works. WE were promised that, WE expect that.
Are you accepting the lies, or fighting them? FEEL like we are being screwed? We ARE being screwed. We were PROMISED, by the liar in chief, we could keep are plans, we cannot. Why? WE HAVE to pay for OTHER'S responsibilites, responsibilities that, when WE were at that age, PAID FOR OUR SELVES! THAT is what RESPONSIBLE ADULTS DO! WE are NOT responsible for OTHER ADULTS! It's THEIR turn to be adults, pay for their ADULT needs, for THEIR children.
The lies are OKEE DOKEE I guess.
This is PERSONAL. It is MY WIFE'S health and our entire financial future at stake. I EXPECT the MAJORITY of people today, to do what the MAJORITY of people in my day did, COVER YOUR OWN EXPENSES!