[spiffyman]

I don't think anyone's denying that this launch is a failure. It's clear as day. josefresco's point, though, seemed to be that this particular quote could easily have been politically motivated. None of the articles you link restate that 'single digits' claim. One of them even states the number could be upwards of 20M.

Just saying: take the 'single digits' claim with a grain of salt. You don't need to buy every ridiculous claim about this to acknowledge that this is a bad launch.

[wikiburner]

Hey spiffyman, reasonable points, but it really looks to me like josefresco is implying that the launch is getting unduly harsh treatment in the media, but maybe I misread it.

Also, regarding the 20 million figure, here's the quote:

Seven percent of Americans report that somebody in their household has tried to sign up for insurance through the health care exchanges, according to an AP-GfK poll. While that's a small percentage, it could represent more than 20 million people.

As many as 20 million "tried to" sign up, based on their extrapolation of some polling data.

The last I heard, no media outlet has been able to find a single successful sign up to interview, and they are definitely looking for one.

The CBS video also claims there have been only "a handful" of sign ups, and it's getting reported in lots of other places. It could be inaccurate, but these are mainstream outlets reporting this, not Breitbart or Drudge. The administration is refusing to release sign up numbers, which certainly doesn't look good.

[spiffyman]

Fair enough, misread the 20M figure. josefresco's already responded re: the 'mainstream outlets' bit.

As for not releasing signup numbers, I can't say I blame them. It wouldn't surprise me if the actual purchase numbers are abysmally low. On the other hand, it's probably reasonable to think those numbers will go up before they have to meet their self-imposed monthly reporting deadline. So I'd guess they're just sitting tight so that they can show a curve in the right direction. I don't think that's particularly insidious.

[somebehemoth]

"As many as 20 million "tried to" sign up, based on their extrapolation of some polling data."

The quote refers to "single digits" and it is ridiculous. If even close to 20 million people tried to sign up then that means many millions of citizens need this coverage and will likely end up getting it because having health insurance is critical to their livelihood. Am I to believe 20 million people needed health insurance, got an error on the web site and just said, "forget this, being uninsured is better than dealing with a web site!"?

"The last I heard, no media outlet has been able to find a single successful sign up to interview, and they are definitely looking for one."

This is a weak argument. It is an anecdote of an anecdote which even if true would not be persuasive. Are you seriously saying that no one has signed up despite 20 million people trying (or single digits)? Your evidence is that you personally haven't found a media outlet that have themselves managed to find someone to interview? Perhaps we should wait a few weeks to make judgement after the facts are known and the government is actually running again?

[wikiburner]

We seem to be having completely different arguments. At no point did I say there was no demand for Obamacare. I'm saying the government has shown a remarkable level of incompetence at running what's essentially a simple lead gen website. I'm also suggesting that this probably doesn't bode well for the successful administration of the program.

Regarding your second point, it's become somewhat of a meme in the press that no reporter has been able to verify or interview a single Obamacare sign up. That's what I'm referring to - not that I myself haven't by chance come across such an interview.

[somebehemoth]

Okay, I concede you didn't imply a lack of demand and that I misunderstood your primary point. For what it is worth you are making a lot of assumptions in order to make your point that Obamacare might not succeed.

My second point stands. Your experience of the media coverage, while valid, doesn't necessarily represent fact. You have to admit it is possible that a reporter managed to interview someone who signed up and you and your news sources were unaware. Even if you proved this point to be true what does it say? No one has signed up? People don't want to be interviewed? Obamacare will fail? I don't get it.

[josefresco]

"The CBS video also claims there have been only "a handful" of sign ups, and it's getting reported in lots of other places. It could be inaccurate, but these are mainstream outlets reporting this, not Breitbart or Drudge. "

This. A Washington Post reporter talks to one random (and anonymous) insurance guy (with who knows what kind of political baggage) who gives them a single quote. They run with it, other news organizations re-run it (repeat x100) assuming it's fact because the Washington Post is a "mainstream" outlet right? And them whammo you have a whole group of people thinking that under 10 people were able to signup for health care. Even if they don't literally think this, the PR damage is done. The perception is now cemented that the launch is a failure because of a "Washington Post report" (sounds official doesn't it?)

Just because a news organization is "mainstream" does not mean it does not carry with it a truckload of bias (see FoxNews/MSNBC).

[wikiburner]

It really seems like you're trying to insinuate that because press bias and bad reporting exist in the world, then somehow this rollout hasn't been a complete failure - despite the tidal wave of press coverage exhaustively demonstrating what a fiasco it's been. I understand this one source could have ulterior motives (although from the news reports I've seen, there have been congressional and HHS sources echoing it), but the notion that the press is basically conspiring to torpedo Obamacare strains credulity.

Even if there were several orders of magnitude more signups then are being reported, the numbers would still be a disaster, so I'm genuinely not sure what your point is.

[josefresco]

This is close to my point.

When I see an article like this the first thing I do is click to see the "source". Often times it's another news org/blog article who cites another "source". Down the rabbit hole I go until I find the actual source which often times has had it's content mutated and taken out of context and/or spun to further the original author's point.

This isn't a "bloggers aren't journalists" rant. I don't care if you're a tiny no-name blogger or work for the Washington Post; your sources better be solid.