Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Medicine Technology

Oregon Signs Up Just 44 People For Obamacare Despite Spending $300 Million 586

Posted by samzenpus
from the try-again-later dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • Or just maybe (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Virtucon (127420) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @11:32PM (#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.

  • Well lucky you (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ArchieBunker (132337) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @11:53PM (#45677257) Homepage

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:03AM (#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.

  • by Blitter (15795) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:04AM (#45677327)

    Oregon taxpayers on the hook for this?

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

  • by Cwix (1671282) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:23AM (#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.

  • Re: News for Nerds? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:44AM (#45677559)

    To be good for the whole of the country, all the red, blue, green and whatever politicians should just go home. A legislative session of three months every other year would suffice, thank you.

  • Extrapolation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZombieRoboNinja (905329) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:58AM (#45677597)

    So here are some data points we start with:

    1. The ACA is a neoliberal kludge designed to give more people healthcare without getting rid of the for-profit insurance industry.
    2. The federal government hired private companies to make the federal website (to the degree that Congress would fund it).
    3. Oregon hired Oracle to make their state website.
    4. The state and federal websites both suck.
    5. Lots more people are signing up for Medicaid than for private insurance through the exchanges, because it's free and easier.

    Now, as a liberal I look at these data points and extrapolate, "Hmm, sounds like private industry isn't automagically more efficient at everything. Heck, I bet if we just extended Medicare to everyone we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with! We could skip the whole part where we let private companies take 15% of our insurance dollars even though the federal programs manage with like 6% overhead! Seems like basically every other industrialized nation in the world has the right idea!" But I guess if you stick enough ellipses in those bullet points, you're left with "ACA... website... suck." Which proves that government is the problem and we should let the invisible hand rule, or something.

  • Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cold fjord (826450) on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:14AM (#45677927)

    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.)

    That makes for a great slogan, and for a range of things it might even work. The problem comes in that the US population tends to be more or less evenly divided as to what constitutes what is best for the good of the whole country, and those visions of what is best are very far apart in some cases. It is like one of the explanations of the difference between the US and Europe. Both value freedom and equality, but Europe has traditionally valued equality more, and the US has valued freedom more. The results lead to different places.

    Poll Finds Vast Gaps in Basic Views on Gender, Race, Religion and Politics [go.com]

    An almost unfathomable gap divides public attitudes on basic issues involving gender, race, religion and politics in America, fueled by dramatic ideological and partisan divisions that offer the prospect of more of the bitter political battles that played out in Washington this month.

    A new ABC News/Fusion poll, marking the launch of the Fusion television network, finds vast differences among groups in trust in government, immigration policy and beyond, including basic views on issues such as the role of religion and the value of diversity in politics, treatment of women in the workplace and the opportunities afforded to minorities in society more broadly.

    It might be best if more decisions were pushed down to the state level and let the states go their separate ways on various policies. Then people can vote with their feet. That will likely result in bluer "blue states," and redder "red states." That may be playing out now between California and Texas.

  • by Karmashock (2415832) on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:45AM (#45678033)

    As to why I would have a problem with providing federally subsidized healthcare to everyone... why stop there?

    Why not provide housing, food, clothing, etc?

    Why only medicine?

    Are you heartless? Don't you know there are people that need food or are homeless? Clearly it doesn't do enough.

    Forgive the hyperbole... but I think you can see the obvious problem with doing that. And its the same problem with endlessly expanding medicare. We can't afford it.

    What is more... you do realize there are people pushing for open immigration... right? Do you see what might happen if you let everyone get on medicare AND have open immigration at the same time?

    This isn't a political opinion here... this is simple accounting. Its math.

    How do you balance this equation?

    I balance it by having people pay for what they use. My system will work with or without open immigration. It will be infinitely scalable. It doesn't require tax increases or massive new regulatory agencies.

    And my system works.

    Does my system mean that sometimes people don't get the care they need? No system ensures that. None of them do. Both of our system are inherently rationing systems. Such systems are themselves a symptom of poverty... or if you will... limited resources. We have enough for some but not enough for every man woman and child on planet earth.

    And it gets better... because then you have to consider medical advances and training. My system encourages new developments in medical technology, drugs, and treatment. Your system discourages profit which discourages risk which discourages investment and research. Which means your system over time will develop less new medicine. Over time... which system will treat people better? The system that is cash starved and primitive? Unlikely.

    You lack respect. No one wants people to be without the treatment they need. But your methods trample over the rights of many and shatter an industry to no purpose. It is naive.

    If you wanted to do Romneycare... that is... a state based healthcare system that states would individually opt into or out of and manage themselves. That would be fine. You didn't. You imposed it on all the states even those that deeply dislike the policy. It is was violation.

    Your political faction exploited a momentary political advantage to ram through legislation the American people had rejected for generations. And what is worse, even with your majorities and power... you had to lie to get it passed.

    That is what your policy is based upon. Lies, exploitation, and contempt. And for that reason it is hard for me to see it with anything but disgust.

  • Re:No Slugfest (Score:4, Interesting)

    by erikkemperman (252014) on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:58AM (#45678083)

    It seems to me that this debacle says more about the practice of having any and all government function handed off to private contractors, much more than it says anything meaningful about Obamacare per se. This story doesn't add anything to that debate.

  • Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anon-Admin (443764) on Friday December 13, 2013 @11:28AM (#45680349) Journal

    I do agree with the quote to some extent, however history gives us the answer.

    In the 1800's the AMA (American Medical Association) began convincing states that they did not need to regulate the education of Medical doctors if they simply required that the doctor graduated from an "AMA Approved College". To date it is a requirement in ALL States in the US. Once the AMA had that in law they began increasing the requirements to become a doctor and restricting the number of allowable students per class. Thus restricting the flow of Doctors into the American market. One example of this restriction that comes to mind is Veterinarians. To be a Doctor (MD) you have 10+ years of schooling and an internship. The be a Veterinarian you have 8 Years of schooling on multiple species including Human and a Vet is capable of handling most of what a GP (General practitioner MD) does.

    So, lets put this into some perspective.

    There are 396 lawyers per 100,000 people in the US.
    There are 125 Veterinarians per 100,000 people in the US.
    There are 2.4 Doctors per 100,000 people in the US.

No hardware designer should be allowed to produce any piece of hardware until three software guys have signed off for it. -- Andy Tanenbaum

Working...