Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oregon Signs Up Just 44 People For Obamacare Despite Spending $300 Million

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the try-again-later dept.

United States 586

cold fjord writes "The Washington Examiner reports, 'Oregon ... signed up just 44 people for insurance through November, despite spending more than $300 million on its state-based exchange. The state's exchange had the fewest sign-ups in the nation, according to a new report today by the Department of Health and Human Services. The weak number of sign-ups undercuts two major defenses of Obamacare from its supporters. One defense was that state-based exchanges were performing a lot better than the federal healthcare.gov website servicing 36 states. But Oregon's website problems have forced the state to rely on paper applications to sign up participants. Another defense of the Obama administration has attributed the troubled rollout of Obamacare to the obstruction of Republican governors who wanted to see the law fail as well as a lack of funding. But Oregon is a Democratic state that embraced Obamacare early and enthusiastically.'"

cancel ×

586 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Was the website made in Gamemaker? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45676989)

No! What a piece of garbage! This Gamemakerlessness is an absolute eyesore! Why not just return? Gamemaker is the greatest. Gamemaker is perfect. Gamemaker is what True Programmers use. Gamemaker. Gamemaker. Gamemaker.

Return. Return. Return. Return, return, return, return, return to Gamemakerdooooooooooooooooooom!

Re:Was the website made in Gamemaker? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677251)

Well what a refreshing return to an old ass troll post. Yet still, to this day, you will not be able to tell me what the hell Gamemaker is. I googled it and got nothin. How am I supposed to return to Gamemakerdom if no one can tell me what it is?

News for Nerds? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677001)

Does this really belong on /.? Seriously?

Re:News for Nerds? (4, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about 8 months ago | (#45677031)

It is just flamebait. They know that these kinds of articles just end up being a blue vs red slugfest.

Re:News for Nerds? (1, Troll)

AK Marc (707885) | about 8 months ago | (#45677145)

THe blues and reds should gang up on the greens (not environmentalists, but capitalists)

Re:News for Nerds? (0)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 8 months ago | (#45677159)

In this world, we only have red pills and blue pills. Wonder what happens if you take both?

Re:News for Nerds? (1)

Beavertank (1178717) | about 8 months ago | (#45677171)

A synergistic reaction that causes a fantastic high and (usually) a painful death soon after.

Re:News for Nerds? (5, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 8 months ago | (#45677399)

In this world, we only have red pills and blue pills. Wonder what happens if you take both?

It becomes a purple pill and your acid reflux gets better. (Which, coincidentally, is what would happen if the red/blue states and red/blue Representatives actually started working together - you know, for the good of the *whole* country.)

Re:News for Nerds? (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#45677287)

They do, sort of; the 'extreme' left and 'extreme' right gang up on the corporate left and the corporate right, and are vilified by those as extreme.

Re:News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677175)

Its Cold Fjord, what do you expect

Re:News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677333)

Its Cold Fjord, what do you expect

I expect to be informed of what the NSA want us to think, that's what.

Re:News for Nerds? (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 8 months ago | (#45677427)

It's perfect Dicedot content.

Idiots (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677011)

Could have done better by just giving each of those 44 people a couple hundred grand or so. Instead it cost 680k per person.

But what do you REALLY expect from our goverment anymore... Just be glad they didn't roll in ruin your life and shoot your dog i guess.

Re:Idiots (5, Insightful)

Beavertank (1178717) | about 8 months ago | (#45677191)

The real idiots are the ones who lump together all levels and branches of government for no rational reason other than they're forms of government.

That makes about as much sense as saying "What do you really expect from the EU, given the way the Chinese government tramples on human rights. Just be glad they didn't ship you off to a concentration camp."

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677241)

speaking of idiots, you really think that that's it, 44 people is all there will be forever into the future. I expect about as much out of government as i hear others say and see other post on websites, which is to say, were getting what we deserve.

Civics Lesson (4, Insightful)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 8 months ago | (#45677017)

Another defense of the Obama administration has attributed the troubled rollout of Obamacare to the obstruction of Republican governors who wanted to see the law fail as well as a lack of funding.

In the tiered form of American government, states cannot merely be told to do something by the federal government in most cases. This is why highway money is tied to specific road laws (seatbelts, etc), because the federal government has to financially coerce states into action (or losing tax dollars). How the Affordable Care Act doesn't have this coercion, I can only guess.

Re:Civics Lesson (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677297)

Maybe because people are tired of being "coerced" by liberal democrats who think they know best? Or conservative republicans who think they know best?

How about you stop cheerleading for the statist final solution to your perceived problems, you fucking jackass.

Re:Civics Lesson (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677453)

Here's an idea: go fuck yourself. Seriously, if you don't have an idea that provides low cost health care for the country you can just fuck right the hell off.

Re:Civics Lesson (4, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about 8 months ago | (#45677391)

At least in part because of the Supreme Court ruling.

The Medicaid expansion was supposed to be a precondition of the states continuing to receive their federal Medicaid grants. The Supreme Court ruled that putting conditions on federal spending was coercive and couldn't be allowed (ponder that for a while).

You have got to be kidding. (4, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 8 months ago | (#45677021)

1. Washington Examiner is one of the MOST extreme right wing political rags in the country.

2. Oregon's web site has not even been online most of the time. It is a total fiasco. Any conclusions on the PPACA based on Oregon are completely ridiculous.

http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-healthcare-exchange-website-never-worked-no-subscribers-130601969--sector.html [yahoo.com]

3. The situation is NOT representative of what is going on in the rest of the country where signups are increasing at a brisk pace after the improvements on Healthcare.gov.

Mod story -1 stupid.

Re:You have got to be kidding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677061)

This post is correct and should be modded up. it looks like Cold Fjord is moderating his own story.

Washington Examiner... hilarious! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677065)

Yeah, this overtly trollish "story" appearing on slashdot is a fucking embarrassment.

Nothing to do with news for nerds. Nothing you wouldn't find on any right-wing extreme blog.

According to the linked pdf, Oregon had 20,617 applications completed. Look at the other states-- this one is going through a cluster-fuck, but liberal California, with its well-designed and fully operational web site, is doing just fine [reuters.com] , thank you.

Re:You have got to be kidding. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677067)

1. Washington Examiner is one of the MOST extreme right wing political rags in the country.

...

Mod story -1 stupid.

You don't even have to read the summary to figure that one out, only as far as "cold fjord writes".

Strangely, "big government" isn't mentioned anywhere in this summary, either he's slipping in his duties as a troll, or maybe I give too little credit and it was edited out by samzenpus.

Don't be so stupid (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677305)

Most of the "signups" are for Medicaid across the country.

Which only proves that the administration is so inept that when they're giving away free healthcare, they can't actually get anyone to sign up.

Obama could f-up an anvil. Jimmy Carter laughs at Obama.

Re:You have got to be kidding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677309)

Mod -1000 for your amazing ability to believe whatever the regime tells you.

And Kim Jong Un's uncle was trying to overthrow the government too. Do you believe that as well?

Re:You have got to be kidding. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677323)

> 1. Washington Examiner is one of the MOST extreme right wing political rags in the country.

Maybe if the maintstream media would do their job, you woldnt' have to read articles such as this only on right wing media.

> 2. Oregon's web site has not even been online most of the time.

That's rather the point.

> It is a total fiasco.

That's rather the point.

> Any conclusions on the PPACA based on Oregon are completely ridiculous.

Are you calling the experience of people from Oregon "completely ridiculous"? I think you are. That's unkind.

> 3. The situation is NOT representative of what is going on in the rest of the country where signups are increasing at a brisk pace after the improvements on Healthcare.gov.

Nobody has "signed up" at healthcare.gov. The most anyone has done there is submit an application, perhaps. But nothing binding has occurred for anyone who used healthcare.gov.

But you know that, I am sure. Why you choose to lie about that... well, we both know the answer to that as well.

So... (5, Insightful)

Beavertank (1178717) | about 8 months ago | (#45677023)

When you say "One defense was that state-based exchanges were performing a lot better than the federal healthcare.gov website servicing 36 states." and then follow it up with "But Oregon's website problems have forced the state to rely on paper applications to sign up participants." are you actually trying to use one state-run exchange's technical failure to undermine the other states whose exchanges are working just fine?

I ask, because if that IS what you did (and it does appear you did) you need to take a remedial course on logic.

Re:So... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677179)

It makes perfect sense. It's like how after I got into a car crash while perfectly sober, I stopped following that "don't drink and drive" malarkey that's so popular these days.

Thanks Oracle. (5, Informative)

Nerrd (1094283) | about 8 months ago | (#45677025)

Re: Thanks Oracle. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677079)

Yup.

One might wish to take a look at the political affiliation of the Oracle management.

It's a web site. This stuff just isn't that hard to make effective and useful. But if you wanted to kill an idea and program that might (properly) cover and protect the less privileged, what could be more effective and useful?

Re: Thanks Oracle. (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#45677289)

One might wish to take a look at the political affiliation of the Oracle management.

One might wish to take a look at Oracle management, period. Hell, the only way that Oregon could have guaranteed a bigger screw up is if they had tried to code it in Lotus Notes.

Re:Thanks Oracle. (1)

rgbatduke (1231380) | about 8 months ago | (#45677229)

The picture in this article reminds me of one of my favorite lines from http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/General/tao/tao.html [duke.edu] (The Tao of Programming):

3.4

A manager went to the master programmer and showed him the requirements document for a new application. The manager asked the master: ``How long will it take to design this system if I assign five programmers to it?''

``It will take one year,'' said the master promptly.

``But we need this system immediately or even sooner! How long will it take if I assign ten programmers to it?''

The master programmer frowned. ``In that case, it will take two years.''

``And what if I assign a hundred programmers to it?''

The master programmer shrugged. ``Then the design will never be completed,'' he said.

Looking at the number of programmers in the room, that seems about right.

This is as sweet as. . . (-1, Offtopic)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#45677029)

. . .a South African sign language interpreter, or a completely clueless POTUS.
In Soviet Russia, your pick takes YOU!

Re:This is as sweet as. . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677125)

. . .a South African sign language interpreter, or a completely clueless POTUS.

In Soviet Russia, your pick takes YOU!

Lol. Proving the facial leftist agenda is more concerned about their power grabbing imagery than the people in actual need of the ideas expressed in their superficial diatribe.

Re:This is as sweet as. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677201)

You don't appear to be familiar with what "proof" actually is...

Re:This is as sweet as. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677319)

You don't appear to be familiar with what "proof" actually is...

"Confirming" may have been better, Sir Formal Logic. Action speak louder than words and the performance art of fake sign language is a classic example of doing lip-service.

Re:This is as sweet as. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677263)

Lol. Proving the facial leftist agenda is more concerned about their power grabbing imagery than the people in actual need of the ideas expressed in their superficial diatribe.

I think you meant "facile"; but ... in a weird way, it still kind of works.

Re:This is as sweet as. . . (1)

hazah (807503) | about 8 months ago | (#45677403)

That seems to have more to do with a story about mental illness than anything else. He is an apperant schizophrenic, what's worse is that he had an episode during the speech. If this is true, then chances are that he truly did translate what he percieved. He deserves nothing but sympathy if that is the case, and medical care. Schizophrania can absolutely make someone lose their own sense of where they are in the world, and is an absolute nightmare to endure.

$300 million- insurance for how many? (0)

ghack (454608) | about 8 months ago | (#45677033)

They could have bought insurance for a lot more than 44 people with $300 million.

Cherry-pick, much? (5, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | about 8 months ago | (#45677043)

The weak number of sign-ups undercuts two major defenses of Obamacare from its supporters. One defense was that state-based exchanges were performing a lot better than the federal healthcare.gov website servicing 36 states.

And that defense is accurate. The state-based exchanges are doing well, on average. The only state-based exchanges that are lagging are in Oregon, Maryland, and Nevada. And the latter two are comparable to the federal exchange. Only Oregon is a real disaster.

And furthermore, the point of that defense is to counter the Republicans claiming that the problems of the federal exchange are due to the law being unworkable. The success of the exchanges in New York, New England, Kentucky, California, etc., proves that the law can work.

Re:Cherry-pick, much? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677113)

California residents lost 5.5 million policies. The law in California being that in order for insurance companies to sell policies in California they MUST go through the state exchange, which lead to the massive cancellations of policies. Has California had even 2 million sign up? I don't think so.

So in your opinion, over 5 million people losing their health insurance and only a tiny fraction of that signing back up through the exchange is a success. I'm beginning to see why left-right arguments happen. The left, like you, see a single data point that "might" be interpreted as good and stick you head in the sand with all other available data. The right, like me, try to see the whole picture and see nothing but complete failure at every possible level and try to point it out to people like you who don't give a damn about how many cancer patients just got a death warrant signed by Obamacare because they dare not admit the truth to anyone.

You lefties make me sick. How many thousands of people are going to die before you admit you were wrong? It took Mao 40 million before he would admit he was wrong, will it take you more?

Re:Cherry-pick, much? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677281)

Why are you so hurt in the butt when obama basically pushed through the republican alternative to hillarycare in 1993????

Re:Cherry-pick, much? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#45677299)

You lefties make me sick. How many thousands of people are going to die before you admit you were wrong?

lol It entertains me that both sides of this debate accuse each other of killing people. And being archaically authoritarian.

Re:Cherry-pick, much? (2)

dbc (135354) | about 8 months ago | (#45677447)

But both sides really *are* authoritarian. The Reps don't want to dismantle the nanny state. They just want to fire the current nanny and bring in their own to enforce a different set of rules.

Re:Cherry-pick, much? (5, Informative)

Above (100351) | about 8 months ago | (#45677411)

I hate to reply to an AC, but I hate wrong information more.

Multiple [cbslocal.com] stories [latimes.com] corroborate [huffingtonpost.com] that the actual number potentially losing healthcare is one million, not the five million the AC suggested. These are policies that don't meet the ACA's minimum coverage levels, and thus are no longer allowed to be offered.

This has been a point pounded hard by those on the right ("If you like your plan you can keep it" was a lie!), wanting to point to people losing insurance. The left's typical response is that the plans are junk plans, and folks are better off being forced to get a real plan. Since those arguments are all over the web, I'm going to skip past them. Visit Google News [google.com] to find them if you have missed out.

As is often the case, reality isn't simple enough to be captured in a sound byte. The law had a provision to grandfather old plans [cnn.com] :

So what happens to the plans that don't meet the new minimum standards? They will likely disappear. A handful of existing plans will be grandfathered in, but the qualifying criteria for that is hard to meet: Members have to have been enrolled in the plan before the ACA passed in 2010, and the plan has to have maintained fairly steady co-pay, deductible and coverage rates until now.

What insurers have done is made sure no pre-2010 plan stayed in effect (yes, they cancel millions of plans every year), and for the few that have they have made sure the co-pays, deductibles, and coverage have changed significantly. Why would they do that? Well there are a about 4 million people [forbes.com] on junk plans. How bad are these plans [tampabay.com] ?

One example: the "Go Blue Health Services Card'' for which cancer survivor Donnamarie Palin of New Port Richey has paid $79 a month. For that, she gets $50 toward each primary care doctor visit, $15 toward each drug — but zero coverage for big-ticket items like hospital stays.

Get in a car wreck, no coverage. Get cancer, no coverage. Need a wart removed, no coverage. Break your arm, no coverage. Yeah. That bad. But they have one thing going for them, they are cheap. $79/month if you don't understand what you're (not) getting seems pretty cheap compared to hundreds of dollars for real insurance. In plain, simple terms these people were going to get a price hike. Now, you're an executive at a health insurance provider faced with the prospect that 4 million people are going to get letters saying "Your $79/month policy is going away, we'd like to offer you a $450/month policy, but it covers a lot more!" Yeah, that's going to lead to lots of bad press on the evening news.

But the way ACA was written had a convenient out. Make sure the law forced the cancellation of the plans, and then flip the narrative to say the government is canceling your plan. It should be no surprise that it took insurance executives about a nanosecond to figure this out and set the wheels in motion. Just make sure no plan qualified or could be grandfathered in.

Now that the Scooby Doo "how did they do it" moment is over, there is one bit left to tidy up. The savvy reader will notice 1 million Californians had their policy cancelled, but only around 150,000 [usatoday.com] have signed up on the California Exchange. Doesn't that mean that there are still about 850,000 less people with insurance? No.

You see, the only people forced to use the Government Exchanges are those who want a subsidy from the Government. Anyone else can still buy insurance directly [nytimes.com] (except for Washington DC and Vermont). Most of the people who are getting cancellation notices find in the same envelope a number of health plans they can purchase that do qualify, and some of them simply sign up. At this moment there is no reliable reporting on how many people have signed up privately. There's even a chance that some of these people are missing out on subsidies they could have if they went to an exchange, but are instead simply signing back up with the insurer who cancelled them!

The sprint of the left's argument that "you can keep your plan" was bunk. People on junk insurance neither had health insurance nor where they paying into the system. Those plans aways had to go from the start, and so the talking point was dead wrong. However the right's talking point that more people are going without insurance is equally bunk. While there are not precise numbers yet, all indicators point to a fairly substantial increase in the number of people with insurance, and the number of people paying into the system. Amazingly over time that should lower the costs to everyone, as costs are distributed more evenly. It will likely take 10 years or more for that to really happen though, so we won't know for some time.

Re:Cherry-pick, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677345)

And there you go cherry picking data to support your case, without any real evidence other than what has been released by "official" government sources.

You are a tool. Say it every morning.

The more poor that sign up, the more the rich pay (0)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 8 months ago | (#45677045)

Just think about it. I used to pay $400/month for insurance, now I pay $73/month. That means that some rich guy is covering the difference. So I like to look at it like the doctor that treats me, and charges me x10 what he should, is actually shooting himself in the foot. And it's all in the name of ...hell if I know.

I just know that rich people get life easy. Seen this story [go.com] yet?

Re:The more poor that sign up, the more the rich p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677115)

You sir have a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance works.

Re:The more poor that sign up, the more the rich p (5, Insightful)

duckintheface (710137) | about 8 months ago | (#45677155)

I get your drift... but two points: Obamacare actually saves money while insuring more people. (Congressional Budget Office analysis). That's because the current system of treating the poor in emergency rooms is outrageously inefficient. And secondly, doctors are not really rich. They may make more than your or me, but in the overall scheme of things it's hospital administrators, pharmaceutical company CEOs, insurance company owners, and bankers who are really really rich.

The biggest political success for Republicans in the last 30 years was convincing the middle and lower middle class to be afraid of the poor. They should instead be very very afraid of the rich.

Re:The more poor that sign up, the more the rich p (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 8 months ago | (#45677269)

The biggest political success for Republicans in the last 30 years was convincing the middle and lower middle class to be afraid of the poor. They should instead be very very afraid of the rich.

That reminds me of how the late-19th/early-20th century populist party was smeared. For the (*gasp* fact based) debunking of that smear, see here [hnn.us] .

Re:The more poor that sign up, the more the rich p (2)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 8 months ago | (#45677365)

> "The biggest political success for Republicans in the last 30 years ..."

I'm a political agnostic and I truly find all the tossing of blame around in the Affordable Care Act revolting. Eventually the buck stops somewhere, and any logical person would have to admit that at this point the Affordable Care Act has been rolled out terribly.

Good intentions? Good ideas? No matter what the ideas or intentions are, the results are terrible.

At this point ... maybe 2 or 3 years from now thing could be different, but this is a fiasco ...

> Obamacare actually saves money while insuring more people. (Congressional Budget Office analysis). That's because the current system of treating the poor in > emergency rooms is outrageously inefficient.

Right now, I think we are observing entirely new magnitudes of inefficient.

Inefficient is boldly going where inefficient has never gone before ...

[Hire some freaking Europeans ... NOW ... ]

Re:The more poor that sign up, the more the rich p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677405)

Dude you're hopeless.

Well lucky you (2, Interesting)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 8 months ago | (#45677257)

If by "rich guy" you mean everyone else with insurance offered by their employer. My same policy went up 44% next year. That is money take directly from my pocket to fund this clusterfuck. I never supported it because I knew the government would totally fuck it up.

Re:Well lucky you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677383)

If by "rich guy" you mean everyone else with insurance offered by their employer. My same policy went up 44% next year..

Renegociate your benefit package, ask for the extra money, pay whatever you feel you can afford. What's so hard?

Re:Well lucky you (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 8 months ago | (#45677435)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that your employer is not covering the new fees, but rather passing them down to the workers. Yes that is a shit deal, brother. Those like you are taking the biggest hit, because it's a large part of your income. I truly sympathies with you. I'd more than likely be in that same boat had I not quit my job.

The insurance that is being offered at my old job requires that the person pay out of pocket $3,000 before any insurance kicks in. So not only are the workers paying more from their paychecks, but they're paying all of their medical bills. So unless they almost die, it's simply not reasonable to have insurance at all. In this way, it's a tragedy, and that's why I choose to think only of the doctor that's charging me to much - because that's the real problem. I'm not saying that doctors are paid to much, I'm saying that they have to charge to much. The medical industry is just to fucking expensive. Everyone agrees.

Re:The more poor that sign up, the more the rich p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677265)

In the short term. "Rich" still pay for all the uninsured who end up in the ER with chronic health problems that would have been caught by a simple checkup earlier on if they're not insured, and without good regulations prices spiral out of control.

The theory (and its only theory, but that's what happens in other countries) is that while cost goes up, it goes up slower with these systems. The only way the rich would pay more long term here is because the law doesn't go far enough.

Re:The more poor that sign up, the more the rich p (1)

hazah (807503) | about 8 months ago | (#45677451)

It's a wonder that this need to be explained, but the logic is dead simple. Healthy people can do work, the sick cannot (or do significantly less of it). If that still baffles anyone as to why the support of healthcare is by definition needs to be by those that do not require healthcare at the time, then I'd imagine that their your are a bit underdeveloped.

Everybody wants obamacare to fail (0)

tompaulco (629533) | about 8 months ago | (#45677053)

Everybody wants obamacare to fail, but for different reasons.
Republicans want it to fail so we can go back to what we had.
Democrats want is to fail to prove that private enterprise can't handle healthcare and we need the government to do it.

Re:Everybody wants obamacare to fail (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 8 months ago | (#45677313)

Democrats want is to fail to prove that private enterprise can't handle healthcare and we need the government to do it.

I know of almost no one who wants the government to handle healthcare - they want the government to handle health insurance. Big difference. Doctors practices, hospitals, etc. continue to operate as separate entities. See, for example, Canada, Australia, Japan, France, Germany, Switzerland, etc. As for the wonders of Obamacare - the only system in the developed world that relies primarily on for-profit insurance companies - get back to me when it has cut costs by 1/3. That would bring us inline with the next most expensive healthcare systems.

Misleading article is misleading (4, Insightful)

Cwix (1671282) | about 8 months ago | (#45677055)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/18/the-other-side-of-obamacares-oregon-success-no-one-has-bought-private-insurance/ [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/oregon-obamacare-website_n_4308629.html [huffingtonpost.com]

The number is so dismal because the Oregon website was worse then the National website. Not because people dont want it as the linked article implies.

Nearly 25,000 individuals and families have so far submitted hard-copy applications, Cox said, with nearly two-thirds of those applicants eligible for Medicaid, a federal-state healthcare plan for the needy.

But none of those applicants has actually been enrolled, with manual processing of the paperwork slowing the process dramatically.

Separately, about 70,000 residents have signed up for Medicaid by responding to letters sent by the state to more than 200,000 people deemed eligible for the program by virtue of their receiving food stamps, Cox said.

Oh wait look who submitted it, cold fjord our resident republi-troll. Hey Cold Fjord... Fuck Off.

Re:Misleading article is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677303)

Looks like Cold Fjord got some mod points and returned the "Fuck Off"

Re:Misleading article is misleading (2, Interesting)

Cwix (1671282) | about 8 months ago | (#45677433)

It is telling that he has not posted on his own submission. Hey Cold Fjord, go ahead and post, I would love to see what it does to the comments that have been moderated.

Official Name of Obama's Healthcare Bill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677057)

What is it? Still not sure about where I stand on the whole thing, but isn't this meant to be an opinionated reference; possibly an aspersion?

Re:Official Name of Obama's Healthcare Bill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677105)

What is it? Still not sure about where I stand on the whole thing, but isn't this meant to be an opinionated reference; possibly an aspersion?

Affordable Care Act

Re:Official Name of Obama's Healthcare Bill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677187)

What is it? Still not sure about where I stand on the whole thing, but isn't this meant to be an opinionated reference; possibly an aspersion?

Affordable Care Act

Editors: Saying Obamacare sounds similar to calling, at every chance, Social Security as Rooseveltaid or the conflicts in the Middle East as Bushwar.

Re:Official Name of Obama's Healthcare Bill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677291)

... or the conflicts in the Middle East as Bushwar.

And... weren't they?

Re:Official Name of Obama's Healthcare Bill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677457)

... or the conflicts in the Middle East as Bushwar.

And... weren't they?

Yes. Kind of like someone calling rock and roll at every chance jungle music. The U.S. has been in the Middle East ever since the Shores of Tripoli and siding with the Egyptians against the British in the 1950's in regards to the Suez Canal --- ad nauseum.

The government got bored (1, Funny)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 8 months ago | (#45677081)

Its obvious from the way it was all designed. They stared... and it quickly became very complicated. And the law makers not wanting to spend the rest of their lives trying to understand something that was very complicated decided to simply reduce everything down to 4 metal themed plans.

Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum.

Not unlike Aristotle's definition of men... which was equally lazy.

And so an adaptable system that could account for literally hundreds of thousands of variables was reduced to a one size fits all system that generally serves everyone poorly.

Everyone.

Not even the poor are well served by this because it harms the healthcare industry itself and especially the healthcare research industry which is responsible for making the next drug or treatment or machine that will in the end... save your life.

This nonsense will see that the drug isn't researched. The treatment isn't developed. The machine isn't made.

Enjoy the free band-aids.

This whole crusade by the Obama administration was madness. Insanity. Giddy cackling lunacy.

And like most things born of madness... it will harm everyone.

This is the problem with the US. It isn't our guns or the money. Its the madness.

This country has a mental health problem.

Re:The government got bored (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 8 months ago | (#45677215)

You have succeeded in proving that you have a mental health problem.

Re:The government got bored (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 8 months ago | (#45677279)

Really? I point to a failed healthcare program that is extremely unpopular... I cite that it was mismanaged... and from that you conclude "I" must have a mental health issue?

Do tell... how do you come to that conclusion.

You're probably not crazy... more likely just an idiot.

*shrugs*

Re:The government got bored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677379)

Unless you mean medicare/medicade and social security, this newest health plan is too young to declare a success or a failure.
Also, it was the Republican proposed plan that Obama took and airbrushed to universal health care that then go wiped off and basically returned to the Republican plan that they proposed during the Bush administration.

Obamacare is such the wrong word. It really is 90% the Republican's plan.
Which makes their bitching all the more confusing.

Broken website; Not a broken law. (5, Insightful)

ndykman (659315) | about 8 months ago | (#45677093)

But, it's not a widespread commendation of the ACA law. In fact, as noted, there are significant enrollments by paper.

Also, there is a huge crunch on the backend to automate the purchasing process. Surprise, most health insurers are not set up to make it easy for people to purchase health plans online, much less handle large numbers of enrollments. Also, there is a lot of work around the small group marketplaces. The article and summary make it sound like 300 million was spent just on the web site. It's not even close. Granted the web site is just broken and heads are starting to roll.

Oh, and the main contractor for the project was Oracle, so, well, if anybody can make that much disappear they can.

Re:Broken website; Not a broken law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677223)

...The article and summary make it sound like 300 million was spent just on the web site. It's not even close. Granted the web site is just broken and heads are starting to roll.

Oh, and the main contractor for the project was Oracle, so, well, if anybody can make that much disappear they can.

No, is was only half of the 300 mils [oregonlive.com] .
Yes, Larry's new island will be even better because of the waste (FU Oracle!!)

Re:Broken website; Not a broken law. (1, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 8 months ago | (#45677311)

Actually the law itself is badly concieved. Its just harder to lie and pretend about the website then it is about the rest.

Get real. Lets assume for the sake of argument... because you won't admit it... that the law was idiotic.

Just assume for one moment that it was badly written and implemented and would actually hurt people.

Would the Obama administration or his political supporters admit it? Nope.

So right there its very hard to use their impression of the matter to justify anything. Obviously the opposition is no more reliable in this matter since they'd be as inclined to say whatever to get their way.

What then is left? Well... we have the emperical fact of the healthcare premiums going up. That's a fact. We have 70 percent of doctors in many areas boycotting the ACA. That is a fact. We have people with serious illnesses that were covered under the old system losing their healthcare and having new healthcare policies offered that are twice as expensive. That is a fact.

How do you deal with that? What is your answer?

Do you have a factual reply to that? Or do you have nothing but mindless worthless rhetoric devoid of integrity or intelligence? Do not be offended by that last point. It is not an insult. It is a challenge. Most that have commented on this issue have offered nothing but mindless rhetoric. Rise above that if you can... again... a challenge.

Re:Broken website; Not a broken law. (4, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 8 months ago | (#45677443)

When the first half of your post is spiteful conjecture and the second half is unsubstantiated claims being passed off as unambiguous truths, I find your demand for facts laughable.

Pathetic (5, Insightful)

laird (2705) | about 8 months ago | (#45677097)

What a pathetic day, when political trolling, with not even a hit of actual technical content, is published as as story on Slashdot. Isn't someone paid to moderate this stuff for substance and relevance?

Re:Pathetic (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 8 months ago | (#45677165)

<troll>
Wait, are we not supposed to just troll this kind of stuff? Shit I thought this was practice, recess, a break... you know, to keep it interesting - where karma meets dogma, and CRASH!
</troll>

Re:Pathetic (4, Funny)

swillden (191260) | about 8 months ago | (#45677193)

What a pathetic day, when political trolling, with not even a hit of actual technical content, is published as as story on Slashdot. Isn't someone paid to moderate this stuff for substance and relevance?

Sucker.

They got you to comment, didn't they? Nobody with half a brain would waste their time typing anyth...

er...

damn.

Or just maybe (5, Interesting)

Virtucon (127420) | about 8 months ago | (#45677107)

Nobody trusts the websites to begin with both in terms of reliability, information availability and security. People I know who've tried the Federal website have been shrugging their shoulders because its navigation sucks and they can get more information from sites like eHealthInsurance.com.

The other problem is for the rest of us in the "insured" category our premiums are going up substantially while existing plans disappear, lose choices of Hospital networks and get wonderful things we don't need anymore (at least at my age..) Maternity care because all the plans have to have it. For all of that I have a new bunch of taxes to subsidize those who can't afford it and my premiums have gone up 225% For that increase I could buy a nice summer home. This isn't the Affordable Care Act it's "you have to do it our way because we say so." Like your current doctor? He's not "In-Network" so we won't cover visits. Like that hospital you've been going to for years? "It's too expensive and we know it's 15 miles closer than the other facility, it's not in your network but you can go there for emergencies since it's the closest to you." The rationing of healthcare has begun and with it you'll pay more (for most of the middle class) and get less. Such a bargain! We should all be signing up on untested websites where you don't know how your information is handled and what they do with the PII you give them.

I can't wait for the midterm elections.

Re:Or just maybe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677349)

Spoken like a true /. 6 digit UID. You're old so everyone else can fuck off. You know maybe your son or daughter might wanna have some maternity leave or some contraception. Not everything is about you. Of course, knowing 6 digits, you'll proudly claim you were so smart that you didn't bother to have kids. If that is your retort then thank you for not spreading your asshole genes into the gene pool. If you do have kids, then why do you hate them?

Because unlike other places... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677109)

...like Canada, the US's healthcare isn't mandatory (yet) for everyone who doesn't have a private insurance. (Well, I say "mandatory" but it's not really, but it's pretty much common knowledge for any Canadian citizen to be registered from birth.)

That Palin Thing Says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677169)

"How's that 'hopey-changey' stuff workin' out for ya?"

:: winks ::

:: snaps gum ::

No, Democrats are not enthusiastic about ACA (1)

gig (78408) | about 8 months ago | (#45677181)

Just as many Democrats hate the ACA for being too right-wing as Republicans hate it for being too left-wing. That is the biggest problem with ObamaCare: nobody really supports it except President Obama. Nobody is willing to fight for it. If the Medicare eligibility age had been changed to zero (like it is in all other countries) then that would have had the support of 70% of the American people, and everybody would already have health care. We'd be building more hospitals and clinics because of all the new patients and doctors and clinics would be competing for patients instead of patients competing for health care.

Anyway, the ACA is not going to fix the health care in the US, and US Americans will continue to be sick and obese and infectious as well as famous for that the world over.

I'm so sick of this shit on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677195)

It's so obviously flamebait. Kentucky's Exchange site is doing great, btw. Tell me how that figures into your world.

This is fucking Slashdot. Yeah, some big software projects fail. This is fucking news to this crowd???

Yes (4, Insightful)

meglon (1001833) | about 8 months ago | (#45677203)

Once again the abject failure of private companies is blamed on the government, because there are people who are too ideologically head-up-ass to look at the reality of the situation. If privatization was such a boon, all the exchanges would be working incredibly well, and they wouldn't have cost near as much.

Re:Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677331)

Once again the abject failure of private companies is blamed on the government, because there are people who are too ideologically head-up-ass to look at the reality of the situation. If privatization was such a boon, all the exchanges would be working incredibly well, and they wouldn't have cost near as much.

Ya, all private companies are failures because CGI is, speaking of people who are too ideologically head-up-ass to look at the reality of the situation.

From an Oregonian... (5, Informative)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about 8 months ago | (#45677207)

If you want the real scoop, check out what our local newspaper wrote:
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/12/oregons_health_exchange_woes_s_1.html [oregonlive.com]

TL;DR: Someone thought control should be handed over to private industry, Oracle was signed up to create the website, they totally screwed it up, and now the website is basically useless and for a long while wasn't even able to sign people up.

So while the public/Democrat finger pointing is good and all (and I don't know who wrote up this summary, they're totally ill informed, outside of Portland Oregon is mostly conversative, in fact here is a map http://bluebook.state.or.us/facts/almanac/almanac10.htm [state.or.us] ), it's really that Oracle screwed everyone over. That's the real story, and the state is looking for a way to get their money back.

Re:From an Oregonian... (4, Insightful)

scamper_22 (1073470) | about 8 months ago | (#45677321)

The interesting thing is that the real test of ObamaCare will not be in this website.

Yes, I suppose anti-ObamaCare people can say they couldn't even get the website right. The rest of it must be a disaster.

On the other hand, we have pro-ObamaCare people cheering when the website gets fixed or more people sign up.

I dare say, all this website stuff will be worked out eventually. It's all rather irreleevant. The real test of ObamaCare will be in its costs, subsidies, who it affects business/people, payments to medical providers, how it impacts MediCare, how it impacts innovation, how it impacts rationing, how it affects current insurance plans, how it distorts the labor market, how it reduces costs, how it provides better healthcare...

You know, all the important stuff.

Re:From an Oregonian... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677351)

People don't report the part about Oracle because Oracle screwing customers over isn't news.

Re:From an Oregonian... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677371)

Who got a kickback on that?

Re:From an Oregonian... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677429)

Who got a kickback on that?

Who will get a kick in their bottom?

Add 100,000 for the rest of the count (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677235)

Oregon was dead last among all states, according to that count. But the tally doesn't include the nearly 100,000 Oregonians who've newly signed up for Medicaid.

Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677261)

News for Nerds, Stuff that

fuck it

This is actually ok, assuming... (2, Interesting)

Blitter (15795) | about 8 months ago | (#45677327)

Oregon taxpayers on the hook for this?

No problem. Oregon went for Obama. They broke it they bought it. Live and learn.

Re:This is actually ok, assuming... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677439)

Ok as somebody from Oregon let me correct you. This latest debacle has nothing to do with Obama and only a little to do with the affordable care act. This mess is the result of Oregon trusting a private company and not covering their asses.

When did this site turn political? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677341)

Was it when it stopped publishing news that matters?

Democrats can't do SHIT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677357)

And they aren't even true democrats - they're champions of big government e.g. republicans in everything but name.

Fifty states of fail.

If you're reading this post ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677413)

you probably could have built it for 1/10th that price.

Why doesn't the USA save some money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45677419)

by going single-payer? /guy from Europe

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>