More of the obligatory negative references to our President. Nothing but surmise, and totally uncalled for. And nothing like continually dredging up old news to try to prop up the propaganda mill. Good job, AI.
This is a new initiative, and obviously NOTHING has been determined yet as to what will be implemented or what any company's specific involvement will be.
But cheap politics certainly don't have to be a factor in any contracts written.
I'd say both Trump and Cook are pragmatists, so this is Cook's chance to sell his products/services/computing philosophies, etc. to the federal government, whose money is just as good as anyone's. And what about IBM's likely involvement as an important Apple enterprise partner. This could be a choice opportunity for Apple.
Major contracts would also mean jobs creation—right here in River City (USA)!
You liberals need to get off the pity pot and get with the program, if not fully on the Trump Train, because America WILL be great again with our without your help.
What are you even talking about? We didn't say anything about the program other than it exists. The author didn't criticize the president at all, not with even one word.
Also, speaking as somebody from inside the beltway, this will generate exactly zero new jobs -- and I have no problem with that. Federal IT sourcing and contracting is brutally inefficient, and if any efficiency can be eked out that's good, but will literally cost hundreds if not thousands of contractors their jobs.
You're proving my point. You can't even resist injecting your own skepticism over something that just started to develop, saying something won't happen even before any programs have started. Great objectivity, there.
If I proved anything, it's only to you. Two separate issues. YOU were the one who said that it would generate more jobs, not the president. Look beyond your defense of the president, and see what I actually said about it. Did I say I had issues with the announcement when I said "and I have no problem with that"
I live here, in the shadow of DC and have for over two decades, with a decade of military service before that. I know what happens when mandates come down like this. I've seen it, over and over, and over.
Plus, this is the forums. I will editorialize as I see fit here.
Seriously, man. I get what you're trying to do, here -- but don't let that blind you to what people are actually saying -- or what they aren't.
"Highly skilled professionals"... who are on "Obamacare"? I don't think so.
That is one physician in a subchapter S corporation with another family member as the other full-time employee. That means no group health insurance plan
The others are all PA-C (physician assistants) which means they have masters degrees and all graduated from some of the best medical schools in the country. Most are working one ER plus working here because they love the details of this medical practice. I would tell you what our compound growth rate is year-over-year, but that would just be bragging
The other two are our part-time billing and operations lady and our MA who is a UCLA grad.
So, highly skilled is exactly correct.
And when I say he doen't know what he's talking about: it's clear casual critics often do not know the details that make the original statement true. P
Honest question: Why can't they buy their own health care -- why do they expect others to provide it for them?
Honest question: Why have you assumed that they "can't" buy their own healthcare, or that they "expect" anything?
Nothing in the OP suggests that, only that they would be unable to work in these particular jobs without the ACA.
Isn't most healthcare in the US paid for by an employer anyway, i.e. "others" (in a bulk buy scheme)?
And by way of insurance, i.e. "others" (in a gambling scheme)?
DARPA was the catalyst for what we know as the Internet today. DARPA and number of other government groups/agency using tax payers money was the catalyst for lots of tech we are all familiar with and favored by most of us. Because of this companies like Apple, Cisco and Google and many more should be giving back to the tax payers and help modernize the government. These companies made their fortunes with the help of money the government has invested in various ways into these companies and the technologies behind them. I not say they should give it to the government for free, but they should not be profiting of the backs of the tax payers.
However, this will never happen since none of the companies will not play nice and our government hires people which do not have the best interest of the public in mind.
DARPA was the catalyst for what we know as the Internet today. DARPA and number of other government groups/agency using tax payers money was the catalyst for lots of tech we are all familiar with and favored by most of us. Because of this companies like Apple, Cisco and Google and many more should be giving back to the tax payers and help modernize the government. These companies made their fortunes with the help of money the government has invested in various ways into these companies and the technologies behind them. I not say they should give it to the government for free, but they should not be profiting of the backs of the tax payers.
However, this will never happen since none of the companies will not play nice and our government hires people which do not have the best interest of the public in mind.
Companies already pay plenty in taxes and typically those taxes are misspent by Washington's political establishment. Pouring more money into Washington is like pouring buckets of "Gremlins"*** into a swimming pool and hoping for the best.
You're proving my point. You can't even resist injecting your own skepticism over something that just started to develop, saying something won't happen even before any programs have started. Great objectivity, there.
Sorry your feelings are hurt, but this isn't a Trump pep rally, and diverse viewpoints are perfectly appropriate at this time. It's pretty amusing that someone who by all accounts can't operate a computer is hosting a summit of "leaders" who have never apparently worked in IT, on a topic about which he knows nothing. It's a valid government need, long overdue, but this isn't the way to address it.
I do agree that it's not nice to make fun of someone with Alzheimer's.
Be careful on the IT plans. Don't want to upset Andrew Jackson!
Oh yeah, Andrew Jackson. I hear he's doing wonderful things out there. He and Fred Douglass.
Trump opponents are making some bizarre statements. The widely reported insinuation that Trump said Andrew Jackson was alive during the Civil War is a complete fabrication. He said IF Jackson had lived longer he would've worked to help prevent the Civil War.
Like putting Trump, Cook, Gates and Musk around a table to discuss IT makes any sense. None of those people know anything about IT. But that is apparently how government works. Let's put a bunch of people with zero knowledge about a given project in charge of it.
Dude, Trump isn’t calling these CEOs to fix the White House’s Wi-Fi. It’s not a house call. He called the CEOs to discuss the problem because THEY RUN THE COMPANIES THAT CAN FIX IT and they would recognize the VALUE in then marketing said improved security to their own customers. Except Zuckerberg, of course.
Did you whine when Obama called the same CEOs to talk about similar things? Not rhetorical or mocking; I don’t actually know if YOU did…
And you guys have the gall to wonder why you lost…
Or how we'd have the best health care ever and despite controlling all three branches of government, we still have Obamacare!
Funny how Obama couldn’t get unconstitutional single payer pushed through, despite controlling the same… huh. By the way, there’s no “control” of Congress by conservatives.
Suckers.
Well, I imagine you’d go for the reference to a childish thing. Your safe space is likely full of them.
Be careful on the IT plans. Don't want to upset Andrew Jackson!
Oh yeah, Andrew Jackson. I hear he's doing wonderful things out there. He and Fred Douglass.
Trump opponents are making some bizarre statements. The widely reported insinuation that Trump said Andrew Jackson was alive during the Civil War is a complete fabrication. He said IF Jackson had lived longer he would've worked to help prevent the Civil War.
The exact quote:
"TRUMP: I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart, and he was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, "There's no reason for this." People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, you think about it, why?"
So in the space of three sentences, Trump said if Jackson had been a little later.... (OK, appropriate). Then he follows that by saying Jackson was really angry that [sic] he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War (inappropriate), and even includes an apocryphal quote (inappropriate). That is what is bizarre, not someone noticing it.
And that's some amusing aside, "he had a big heart"--I'm sure his 160 slaves and the entire Cherokee nation thought so too.
Look, the man cannot compose a series of coherent thoughts, he knows absolutely nothing about any of the executive orders he signs, loves those petty strongman dictators, thought he was bombing Iraq instead of Syria, makes up paranoid delusions that are universally debunked, flips on important policy matters in the space of hours and days, and he couldn't negotiate his way out of a parking ticket, even with his own party. Other than that, thanks for the despot.
And he should probably have an Alzheimer's evaluation. Sooner would be better than later.
If I were president, I think I would be doing the same thing. Asking these leaders of these companies that have created amazing digital links to the population about ways to better connect the government to the peoplein the modern world.
Not everyone wants to be "better connected" to the government! I sure don't; I want their tentacles shrunk and pruned, not thrust deeper into my life.
I realize that this might not be what you meant, and that giving people better access to government information and services can be a Good Thing. But the word "connected" is dangerously overused and is normalizing a lot of bad behavior. Some by government, but mostly by private enterprise right now. People are normally more suspicious of government, but the reality is that it's all about normalizing people's behaviors around sharing and being "connected", and corporations like google and facebook lead the way on getting people to think it's okay to have their lives monitored and analyzed 24/7/365. This in turn makes it easier for other entities to ask for and eventually require these connections, like government agencies, schools, insurance companies, employers and so on. This is an ongoing trend, and it shows no signs of abatement.
Did you whine when Obama called the same CEOs to talk about similar things? Not rhetorical or mocking; I don’t actually know if YOU did…
Or how we'd have the best health care ever and despite controlling all three branches of government, we still have Obamacare!
Funny how Obama couldn’t get unconstitutional single payer pushed through, despite controlling the same… huh. By the way, there’s no “control” of Congress by conservatives.
Trump opponents are making some bizarre statements.
Mental health isn’t exactly high on Democrats’ lists of priorities. It tends to get in the way of their voting base growing.
The thing is, the Obama topics were privacy, technology and intelligence. Not the same things.
Obama never tried to get single payer through, although he did support the idea in the years prior to his terms. That's a fabrication. And please identify the Republicans in the House who would not be considered by themselves and others as conservative (this should be interesting).
Mental health was considered important enough to be on thee Democratic party platform. But I realize it's just a snide comment.
DARPA was the catalyst for what we know as the Internet today. DARPA and number of other government groups/agency using tax payers money was the catalyst for lots of tech we are all familiar with and favored by most of us. Because of this companies like Apple, Cisco and Google and many more should be giving back to the tax payers and help modernize the government. These companies made their fortunes with the help of money the government has invested in various ways into these companies and the technologies behind them. I not say they should give it to the government for free, but they should not be profiting of the backs of the tax payers.
However, this will never happen since none of the companies will not play nice and our government hires people which do not have the best interest of the public in mind.
Companies already pay plenty in taxes and typically those taxes are misspent by Washington's political establishment. Pouring more money into Washington is like pouring buckets of "Gremlins"*** into a swimming pool and hoping for the best.
***80's film reference
I did not say poor more money, but let these company do the R&D and development of the product the government uses, Today the bid out to the lowest bidder only to get something they does not work and then pay more to fix it. That is what happen with the Health Care Exchange they set up, they let some government contractor to develop the website which did not work and then pay more to find other companies to fix, I think you would agree Google could have done a better job and delivered it on time. My experience has been you go people in government writing the spec to develop something who have no idea how things works and the government contractors give them exactly what they ask for know they will get paid to fix the screw up.
Actually Most companies do not pay lots of taxes, Apple is one of the few which pays a huge tax bill, there are all kinds of companies who find ways to reduce their tax to 0% if they can. Even Apple is not paying the full 35% only 25% due to all the write offs which they are allowed.
DARPA was the catalyst for what we know as the Internet today. DARPA and number of other government groups/agency using tax payers money was the catalyst for lots of tech we are all familiar with and favored by most of us. Because of this companies like Apple, Cisco and Google and many more should be giving back to the tax payers and help modernize the government. These companies made their fortunes with the help of money the government has invested in various ways into these companies and the technologies behind them. I not say they should give it to the government for free, but they should not be profiting of the backs of the tax payers.
However, this will never happen since none of the companies will not play nice and our government hires people which do not have the best interest of the public in mind.
Companies already pay plenty in taxes and typically those taxes are misspent by Washington's political establishment. Pouring more money into Washington is like pouring buckets of "Gremlins"*** into a swimming pool and hoping for the best.
***80's film reference
I did not say poor more money, but let these company do the R&D and development of the product the government uses, Today the bid out to the lowest bidder only to get something they does not work and then pay more to fix it. That is what happen with the Health Care Exchange they set up, they let some government contractor to develop the website which did not work and then pay more to find other companies to fix, I think you would agree Google could have done a better job and delivered it on time. My experience has been you go people in government writing the spec to develop something who have no idea how things works and the government contractors give them exactly what they ask for know they will get paid to fix the screw up.
Actually Most companies do not pay lots of taxes, Apple is one of the few which pays a huge tax bill, there are all kinds of companies who find ways to reduce their tax to 0% if they can. Even Apple is not paying the full 35% only 25% due to all the write offs which they are allowed.
The Federal government has no business inserting its beak and claws into healthcare, so we're not going to agree on that point.
The thing is, the Obama topics were privacy, technology and intelligence. Not the same things.
Certainly, but the premise–that it’s government contracting which can be later utilized in the private sector–remains the same. Look at what NASA has done for the world by the government saying, “Hey, let’s get to the Moon before the commies.”
Obama never tried to get single payer through
ACA before SCOTUS ruling.
the Republicans in the House who would not be considered by themselves
Irrelevant. I can call myself an attack helicopter; that doesn’t make it true.
and others as conservative
All of them. Sessions (before leaving Congress) and probably Trey Gowdy could be considered conservatives back to about 1970. Before that, no.
Mental health was considered important enough to be on thee Democratic party platform.
"Highly skilled professionals"... who are on "Obamacare"? I don't think so.
That is one physician in a subchapter S corporation with another family member as the other full-time employee. That means no group health insurance plan
The others are all PA-C (physician assistants) which means they have masters degrees and all graduated from some of the best medical schools in the country. Most are working one ER plus working here because they love the details of this medical practice. I would tell you what our compound growth rate is year-over-year, but that would just be bragging
The other two are our part-time billing and operations lady and our MA who is a UCLA grad.
So, highly skilled is exactly correct.
And when I say he doen't know what he's talking about: it's clear casual critics often do not know the details that make the original statement true. P
Honest question: Why can't they buy their own health care -- why do they expect others to provide it for them?
That's a reasonable question. Each of them is, in fact, buying their own policy through the ACA. Because each is part-time here at our medical practice working 12 to 30 hours per week, the ACA was the best and sometimes the only plan.
Each individual here works between 42 to 65+ hours per week at their respective two or three jobs.
Some of these highly skilled individuals have dependents with pre-existing conditions that block any reasonable individual policy.
There is not a single member of the team who is free-loading off of anyone -- in most cases they get no premium support -- and in fact they give of themselves at all hours to provide medical care to some of the hardest populations to serve.
These seven people on the ACA also pay a ton in taxes, have put a total of 11 children through college. Am I proud of them? You bet. Starting up a small business is tough, and this would be more difficult and slower without the ACA.
So even though I'm a very long term Rebublican, thank you very much Mr. Obama.
Now.... how about the politicians figure out some real long term improvements.
(1) Gov usually contract out for high tech RFP (request for proposal), being IT or building new aircraft. The selected Co or group are consider experts in the field to provided requirements, solve a problem, get preliminary specifications for performance. After you will get the bidding process for the proposal. - Normally the problem is the politician that know little (worst) but not fully comprehend the full tasks, want to put their stamp on the initial RFP, or constantly change the RFP requirements... that causes more problem than good - backward compatibility for example was dictated for some old access system...etc. etc. If they can stay in initial RFP and spend good time to nail down the vision, not changing it based on political tide (change party in control for example), you will save money, get better system, not delay as much. (fix Obama care rather than start all over again for example). (2) CEO of the tech are good input. However, the democratic approach of the tech might be a problem... Singapore years ago used to run by 2 mainframes (not sure what happen now), good security, good control, efficient.... everything including kids homework are on the mainframe network... but that not going to happen in US. the cloud is good, but server farm just not efficient. IMHO... as for IT, it is nightmare with all the different OS, etc.etc. different agency with different IT contract just call for inefficiency. Not sure who can fix it. Not easy. (even steve J jump out of ground might not be able to do it effectively in 4 years). sorry about the bleak view. but it is IMHO.
That's a reasonable question. Each of them is, in fact, buying their own policy through the ACA. Because each is part-time here at our medical practice working 12 to 30 hours per week, the ACA was the best and sometimes the only plan.
Each individual here works between 42 to 65+ hours per week at their respective two or three jobs.
Some of these highly skilled individuals have dependents with pre-existing conditions that block any reasonable individual policy.
There is not a single member of the team who is free-loading off of anyone -- in most cases they get no premium support -- and in fact they give of themselves at all hours to provide medical care to some of the hardest populations to serve.
These seven people on the ACA also pay a ton in taxes, have put a total of 11 children through college. Am I proud of them? You bet. Starting up a small business is tough, and this would be more difficult and slower without the ACA.
So even though I'm a very long term Rebublican, thank you very much Mr. Obama.
Now.... how about the politicians figure out some real long term improvements.
Sorry, but a person who is availing themselves of the ACA is definitionally freeloading. They are being subsidized.
And for the record, I'd also accept arguments that certain businesses or financial "institutions" have been freeloading off of taxpayers when they receive special favors, protections from competition or bailouts.
Comments
Seriously, man. I get what you're trying to do, here -- but don't let that blind you to what people are actually saying -- or what they aren't.
Nothing in the OP suggests that, only that they would be unable to work in these particular jobs without the ACA.
Isn't most healthcare in the US paid for by an employer anyway, i.e. "others" (in a bulk buy scheme)?
And by way of insurance, i.e. "others" (in a gambling scheme)?
Here is what I find interesting about all this.
DARPA was the catalyst for what we know as the Internet today. DARPA and number of other government groups/agency using tax payers money was the catalyst for lots of tech we are all familiar with and favored by most of us. Because of this companies like Apple, Cisco and Google and many more should be giving back to the tax payers and help modernize the government. These companies made their fortunes with the help of money the government has invested in various ways into these companies and the technologies behind them. I not say they should give it to the government for free, but they should not be profiting of the backs of the tax payers.
However, this will never happen since none of the companies will not play nice and our government hires people which do not have the best interest of the public in mind.
***80's film reference
Sorry your feelings are hurt, but this isn't a Trump pep rally, and diverse viewpoints are perfectly appropriate at this time. It's pretty amusing that someone who by all accounts can't operate a computer is hosting a summit of "leaders" who have never apparently worked in IT, on a topic about which he knows nothing. It's a valid government need, long overdue, but this isn't the way to address it.
I do agree that it's not nice to make fun of someone with Alzheimer's.
Did you whine when Obama called the same CEOs to talk about similar things? Not rhetorical or mocking; I don’t actually know if YOU did… “If anyone so much as breathes a word of DDoS, I’ll come down there and hack into their biggest accounts!” And you guys have the gall to wonder why you lost…
Funny how Obama couldn’t get unconstitutional single payer pushed through, despite controlling the same… huh. By the way, there’s no “control” of Congress by conservatives.
Well, I imagine you’d go for the reference to a childish thing. Your safe space is likely full of them. Mental health isn’t exactly high on Democrats’ lists of priorities. It tends to get in the way of their voting base growing.
"TRUMP: I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart, and he was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, "There's no reason for this." People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, you think about it, why?"
So in the space of three sentences, Trump said if Jackson had been a little later.... (OK, appropriate). Then he follows that by saying Jackson was really angry that [sic] he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War (inappropriate), and even includes an apocryphal quote (inappropriate). That is what is bizarre, not someone noticing it.
And that's some amusing aside, "he had a big heart"--I'm sure his 160 slaves and the entire Cherokee nation thought so too.
Look, the man cannot compose a series of coherent thoughts, he knows absolutely nothing about any of the executive orders he signs, loves those petty strongman dictators, thought he was bombing Iraq instead of Syria, makes up paranoid delusions that are universally debunked, flips on important policy matters in the space of hours and days, and he couldn't negotiate his way out of a parking ticket, even with his own party. Other than that, thanks for the despot.
And he should probably have an Alzheimer's evaluation. Sooner would be better than later.
I realize that this might not be what you meant, and that giving people better access to government information and services can be a Good Thing. But the word "connected" is dangerously overused and is normalizing a lot of bad behavior. Some by government, but mostly by private enterprise right now. People are normally more suspicious of government, but the reality is that it's all about normalizing people's behaviors around sharing and being "connected", and corporations like google and facebook lead the way on getting people to think it's okay to have their lives monitored and analyzed 24/7/365. This in turn makes it easier for other entities to ask for and eventually require these connections, like government agencies, schools, insurance companies, employers and so on. This is an ongoing trend, and it shows no signs of abatement.
The thing is, the Obama topics were privacy, technology and intelligence. Not the same things.
Obama never tried to get single payer through, although he did support the idea in the years prior to his terms. That's a fabrication. And please identify the Republicans in the House who would not be considered by themselves and others as conservative (this should be interesting).
Mental health was considered important enough to be on thee Democratic party platform. But I realize it's just a snide comment.
I did not say poor more money, but let these company do the R&D and development of the product the government uses, Today the bid out to the lowest bidder only to get something they does not work and then pay more to fix it. That is what happen with the Health Care Exchange they set up, they let some government contractor to develop the website which did not work and then pay more to find other companies to fix, I think you would agree Google could have done a better job and delivered it on time. My experience has been you go people in government writing the spec to develop something who have no idea how things works and the government contractors give them exactly what they ask for know they will get paid to fix the screw up.
Actually Most companies do not pay lots of taxes, Apple is one of the few which pays a huge tax bill, there are all kinds of companies who find ways to reduce their tax to 0% if they can. Even Apple is not paying the full 35% only 25% due to all the write offs which they are allowed.
Trump calls tech CEOs to June meetings, orders overhaul of US government IT
ACA before SCOTUS ruling.
Irrelevant. I can call myself an attack helicopter; that doesn’t make it true.
All of them. Sessions (before leaving Congress) and probably Trey Gowdy could be considered conservatives back to about 1970. Before that, no.
Well, the normalization of it, at least.
Each individual here works between 42 to 65+ hours per week at their respective two or three jobs.
Some of these highly skilled individuals have dependents with pre-existing conditions that block any reasonable individual policy.
There is not a single member of the team who is free-loading off of anyone -- in most cases they get no premium support -- and in fact they give of themselves at all hours to provide medical care to some of the hardest populations to serve.
These seven people on the ACA also pay a ton in taxes, have put a total of 11 children through college. Am I proud of them? You bet. Starting up a small business is tough, and this would be more difficult and slower without the ACA.
So even though I'm a very long term Rebublican, thank you very much Mr. Obama.
Now.... how about the politicians figure out some real long term improvements.
(2) CEO of the tech are good input. However, the democratic approach of the tech might be a problem... Singapore years ago used to run by 2 mainframes (not sure what happen now), good security, good control, efficient.... everything including kids homework are on the mainframe network... but that not going to happen in US. the cloud is good, but server farm just not efficient. IMHO... as for IT, it is nightmare with all the different OS, etc.etc. different agency with different IT contract just call for inefficiency. Not sure who can fix it. Not easy. (even steve J jump out of ground might not be able to do it effectively in 4 years).
sorry about the bleak view. but it is IMHO.
And for the record, I'd also accept arguments that certain businesses or financial "institutions" have been freeloading off of taxpayers when they receive special favors, protections from competition or bailouts.