Forgot your password?
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 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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:13PM (#45677001)
    Does this really belong on /.? Seriously?
  • Civics Lesson (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:16PM (#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.

  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beavertank (1178717) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:17PM (#45677023)
    When you say "One defense was that state-based exchanges were performing a lot better than the federal 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:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amiga3D (567632) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:19PM (#45677031)

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

  • by Cwix (1671282) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:25PM (#45677055) [] []

    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: Thanks Oracle. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:29PM (#45677079)


    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?

  • by ndykman (659315) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:30PM (#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.

  • Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by laird (2705) <lairdp AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:30PM (#45677097) Journal

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:32PM (#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?

  • by duckintheface (710137) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:38PM (#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:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beavertank (1178717) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:44PM (#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."
  • Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meglon (1001833) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:46PM (#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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:57PM (#45677281)

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

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

    by phantomfive (622387) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:57PM (#45677287) Journal
    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.
  • by Karmashock (2415832) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @11:02PM (#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.

  • by scamper_22 (1073470) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @11:03PM (#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:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @11:16PM (#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.)

  • by Nemyst (1383049) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @11:25PM (#45677443) Homepage
    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.
  • Seriously, the summary is even laughably over-spun. They are blaming this on the Obama administration while simultaneously admitting that Oregon set up a state exchange, meaning they did not require interaction from the federal website or the federal government for anything beyond certifying that people bought qualified plans. Yet we go and blame the low enrollment on Obama.

    Of course, here on slashdot, anything and everything wrong in the world can be blamed on Obama and Monica Lewinsky, personally.
  • Re:Or just maybe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ebno-10db (1459097) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @11:40PM (#45677525)

    Your complaints about Obamacare are valid. Welcome to the only healthcare system in the world that relies primarily on for-profit insurance companies. You want to return to the status quo ante Obamacare? Well, that left tens of millions without health insurance. It would also leave you without health insurance if you had any serious medical problems. So how to address all these concerns? I've got it - copy Canada's system. Nah, too simple, too well proven, we've got to think of some brilliant approach instead.

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 12, 2013 @11:52PM (#45677577)

    Well, the nerds who made the oregon obamacare site got 300 million bucks for a site used by 44 people.

    That's pretty much any geeks dream job there. Big money, doesn't really work, used by almost nobody, and still made headline news.

  • Re:No Slugfest (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Beavertank (1178717) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @11:56PM (#45677587)
    ...because politicians don't run businesses, they run a branch of government, and governments ARE NOT and SHOULD NOT BE businesslike.

    Also, a "supermajority of the people in the U.S." don't want the Affordable Care Act, eh? I think you need to take a trip back to reality, where facts are king, and simply inventing "facts" like you're doing is generally frowned upon.
  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Thursday December 12, 2013 @11:59PM (#45677609) Homepage

    The real "nerd angle" on this story has nothing to do with who's president, but rather that it's another one of Oracle's embarrassing failures. You'd have to be pretty desperate to blame anyone in D.C. for this.

  • Re:News for Nerds? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by cold fjord (826450) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:38AM (#45677783)

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

    So you don't think spending $300,000,000 on a significant IT project to get a website used by 44 people matters.... even as an example of massive waste, fraud, or abuse? Wow.

    You're not a taxpayer I take it?

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

    by AK Marc (707885) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:50AM (#45677837)
    Getting paid for work is not capitalistic. Did you notice that every country that tried "socialism" or "communism" has always maintained currency, and people were paid, regardless of whether the government answered to the people or the corporations.

    The US is communist, but rather than the government nationalizing the corporations, the corporations bought the government. Different path to the same result. Oppression by the government of the people.
  • Re:No Slugfest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AK Marc (707885) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:56AM (#45677863)

    Also, a "supermajority of the people in the U.S." don't want the Affordable Care Act, eh? I think you need to take a trip back to reality, where facts are king, and simply inventing "facts" like you're doing is generally frowned upon.

    Nope, I've seen the poll results. "would you rather have the government set up death panels and dictate your health care options (ACA), or let the free market work it out?" And "Would you rather have it be a crime to not buy private insurance (ACA), or have a cheap single-payer system with better care for a lower price?"

    People will pick the non-ACA answer when you make the question loaded, then the people that think the ACA didn't go far enough will be counted as opponents, even if they'd rather have the ACA than the previous system.

  • by jensend (71114) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:11AM (#45677921)

    I am 28 and presently uninsured. I delayed getting individual insurance because I knew my plan would be canceled at the end of this year (anybody who actually spoke with the insurance companies has known for a long time that "you can keep your plan" was a lie), so I figured I might as well wait for the Obamacare compliant plans.

    Well, the Obamacare compliant plans cost literally over four times as much per month to get comparable insurance. People who went ahead and got the noncompliant plans have now got a reprieve by executive fiat; they can keep the cheap plans another year. All of the effects of this bill have been effectively canceled per dictatorial fiat except for socking it to me and others in similar conditions.

    Depending on what happens with school and work, my income may be low enough that I don't need to pay the fine for being uninsured, but even if it isn't, it's better to pay the $95 fine and gamble on my health being OK than to pay $2400 for a crappy insurance plan.

    The whole situation is insane. Health insurance should be like home insurance. The expected costs of home maintenance are paid out of pocket; your insurer doesn't pay your heating bill or pay to have your gutters cleaned out. Insurance is there to mitigate catastrophic risks, not to take care of your regular expected expenses for you. We do need robust assistance for those who can't pay their expected health costs, but that has nothing to do with insurance, and conflating the two won't make care more affordable. Not being able to pay your health costs is just another form of poverty; it's important to provide a safety net but this is a terrifically thickheaded way to try to go about it.

    A few decades ago most people paid most of their health costs out of pocket and the country was better for it. Having employer insurance take care of everything is basically a modern tax avoidance racket. It's less efficient, the costs balloon, people without employer-provided insurance end up in more and more trouble, and the lost government revenue brings program cuts, higher deficits, or more economically disruptive ways of getting tax revenue. Insurance plans and health savings accounts should be taxed exactly like normal income and savings.

  • Re:Civics Lesson (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superwiz (655733) on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:07AM (#45678107) Journal

    ponder that for a while

    Well, if the fed govt can't attach conditions to the arts funding, why should it be able to attach conditions to states continuing to receive medicaid grants. If that money is already apportioned for medical spending, then taking it away would be tantamount to threatening to bankrupt state government if they don't "volunteer" for a new federal program.

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

    by rtb61 (674572) on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:09AM (#45678111) Homepage

    Upon a computer geek/nerd basis the interesting part of the story is that due to computer software contractor failures they are having to process the applications manually. The system was built so that either it completely worked or it completely failed, with no in between.

    So it seems with large complex systems it makes somewhat illogical to design it to functional completely manually and then automate the various elements. Thus should any element fail it can be handled manually whilst the rest of the system continues to function. Otherwise one bug can result in total failure, which is pretty stupid for an essential system.

    So this introduces a new geek/nerd design idea, should a manual system be designed first to simulate the eventual digital outcome. This provides a hands on, readily realisable system with established protocols that all operators and users can see and readily understand. It might take up a lot of space and take a lot of skilled design and hand crafting to achieve but it could be a more logical method of representing what needs to be achieved and provides manual backup for all automated elements.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:39AM (#45678183)

    So quit whining about those lucky duckies and quit your job already

  • Stinky Poo. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by niftymitch (1625721) on Friday December 13, 2013 @03:51AM (#45678435)

    ...Oregon is a Democratic state...

    LOL! The author obviously knows nothing about Oregon. Oregon is not a Democratic state. Portland is a city with a high population density of lefties surrounded by a sparsely populated state of Teabaggers.

    Stinky poo.... was news for nerds.

    If a state government trolled out a web site for c.40 people to the
    tune of 300 million dollars something is astoundingly wrong.
    Do the math against the population of Oregon in 2013, approximately 3,899,353.

    Some that read News for Nerds recall the bubble where Dot/Bomb companies
    left an economic wasteland behind them. I cannot convince myself that these funds
    were spent in Oregon and I cannot convince myself that Oregon has not been
    assaulted by financial thugs...

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2013 @03:57AM (#45678455)

    Doctors' Offices routinely comment on what exceptional health coverage I have. I work for a massive multi-national corporation that provides great health plan choices. However, it comes at a cost. My deductible is only a couple grand and they pay between 80% and 100% of absolutely everything from doctor visits to prescriptions to surgery. I also have vision and dental.

    However, my employer only covers about $260 of it. I have to pay the other $450 of it myself. That is $710/mo, combined, for one individual's health care.

    And, on top of that, I'm apparently supposed to pay to contribute to this pot for other people to get their "free" scam health care (who also discover they have to pay a ridiculous amount for shitty plans - welcome to the real world!).

    The funniest bit is that all these idiots bitching and moaning about it and refusing to take any coverage at all because of the expense were practically jizzing their pants the last six years over the idea that Obama gonna get them some freebies.

    I sympathize with people who have little or no health coverage. It has to be horrible and frightening. However, the fact of the matter and the fact of this world is that things aren't free and better things are more expensive. Especially in health care. The solution isn't "gimme shit free you guise!". The solution has to involve targeting the fucking ridiculous expenses. Why isn't anyone doing that? The reason we have to come up with these complex bullshit schemes for "cheap/free healthcare" that is neither of those things is because the medical industry can charge such ridiculous prices to health insurers, because health insurers disperse the cost among a great number of people and institutions. To the point where people don't quite realize how bad they're getting fucked. And, instead of people saying "fuck that, stop letting them milk prices", they say "fuck that, make my fellow man pay my way!".

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

    by The Grim Reefer (1162755) on Friday December 13, 2013 @08:05AM (#45679201)

    (Which, coincidentally, is what would happen if the red/blue states and red/blue Representatives actually started working together

    The last time that happened we started bombing Iraq over WMDs and passed the patriot act.

  • Re:No Slugfest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dkleinsc (563838) on Friday December 13, 2013 @08:06AM (#45679207) Homepage

    An example of the effects of propaganda: People in Kentucky who have been signing up on Kentucky's state-run exchange have been reported saying things like "This is so much better than Obamacare, thank goodness that Kentucky set up their own program!" This is of course idiocy, since Kentucky's state-run exchange is simply a part of precisely what is being derisively referred to as "Obamacare".

    But yes, Frank Luntz in particular is very very good at getting poll numbers that say whatever he wants them to say.

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

    by Salgak1 (20136) < minus cat> on Friday December 13, 2013 @08:44AM (#45679359) Homepage

    The problem is, that the Red/Blue State paradigm is flawed.

    The REAL split is between the Cities and Not the Cities. And goes back quite a while, at least half a century.

    The operating level of political difference is really at the County Level, not the State level.

    Case in point, look at all the Secession movements: "Jefferson" (i.e. Northern California), the current Colorado secession efforts, even the fledgeling Maryland effort for the western-most counties. All are effectively de-franchised by the sheer numbers in other state districts, and have no poltical effect on the State at all

    Technology allows Government to be more effective at the lower level: let it.

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

    by dywolf (2673597) on Friday December 13, 2013 @09:28AM (#45679745)

    and you make the same tired argument that youre better off with no insurance.
    the myth of the young invincible is jsut that, a myth.

    you may be fine...until you actually need it. and thats a huge gamble to take with your life and your financial well being.
    medical costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in this nation.

    "A 2011 study from the Commonwealth Fund found that more than half of uninsured young adults reported having a medical problem but not seeking treatment. Among insured young adults, that number was 19 percent. ( [] ) That same survey found that 51 percent of uninsured young adults had difficulty paying medical bills, with 26 percent having been contacted by a collection agency."

    "One Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that 17 percent of women ages 18 to 29, and 13 percent of men, have a chronic condition such as cancer or diabetes. Federal data show that young adults have higher rates of car accidents, which could lead to pricey medical bills."

    Or this story: []

    its neither a huge scam, nor are you the intended target of these plans.
    the ACA was not intended to bring healthcare to the entire nation.
    it was intended to fill the gaps, to cover the uninsured and uninsurable, not to bring insurance to those who already have it.
    its not some communistic redistribution scam...
    (though the very idea and concept of Insurance itself IS A REDISTRIBUTION CONTRACT....becauses thats teh concept of how insurance works!!!)

    You dont pay more than your fair share for anyone. it is not welfare.

    You're just another typical right wing nut, completely misinformed about the ACA, its purpose, what it does, and who it affects.
    in short, you're an idiot, and so is whoever modded you insightful

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

    by dywolf (2673597) on Friday December 13, 2013 @09:44AM (#45679869)

    which brings up the main problem with the ACA: that is is simply furthering the insurance concept.
    yes, its better to pay only 183k instead of 450k.
    yes its better to have insurance than nothing.

    The ACA is not some communistic redistribution welfare like the original idiot stated, its actually very capitalistic, pro free market, and follows conservative ideals. the only truly liberal thing about it is the Mediaid Expansion (which is optional). the exchanges are purely free market, and a component of EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE PROPAL.

    and that is the problem: its simply a continuance of the status quo, that brings that status quo to more people.
    The true ultimate problem of the ACA is not that it is another entitlment program.
    The true ultimate problem of the ACA is that it is NOT another entitlment program.

    its better than nothing, BUT we would be even better off as a nation WITH a national health care system.

    We've already seen the success of single payer systems, both worldwide, and in our own nation: Medicare and Medicaid together make up the single most efficient and cost effective segment of our health care system.

    We spend nearly 50% more as a nation on health care than any other nation, but our outcomes do not match our expenditures.
    in fact, we below average in nearly metric, other than number of MRI machines per capita. we DO NOT get what we pay for.

    but if you split our system into its segments, public and private, the nubmers tell a different story. Our public segment more closely matches the cost/benefit ratios of other nations, and overspends by a much smaller amount. The private segment however jumps to a whopping 200% (or more) spent compared to other nations for the same or worse outcomes.

    Not a single nation with a national health care system would trade its system for the American one.
    No one in these nations EVER goes bankrupt due to a medical bill. But medical bills are the number one cause of bankrupty in the US.

    Single payer works.
    And people need to get over it.

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

    by damn_registrars (1103043) <> on Friday December 13, 2013 @09:44AM (#45679873) Homepage Journal

    This site gets more conservative every year. Currently if you don't have a shrine to Ayn Rand in your house you will be labeled a communist here.

    How the hell is this a "conservative" thing?

    It is a conservative matter because this story was posted here not to catalyze discussion but rather to incite another round of "liberal" bashing. Read the comments, and look at the source of this story. This is not here to drive intelligent discussion of the matter.

    The problem with a lot of people is they insist on casting everything no matter how factual as a poplitical issue. This is not politcs.

    No, this is politics. This story was posted to get people angry at Obama (not that any special action is required to get that to happen here). Notice that this one places blame for the matter squarely at the feet of Obama, even though the state is running its own exchange (and hence is not tethered to the problems of the federal exchange).

    You know what? I like socilised healthcare.

    That will earn you a large number of freaks here - welcome to the club. Prepare to be called all kinds of uncivilized things soon.

    A website is a tech thing and a $300e6 website is an unusual enough tech thing to warrant being interesting

    The cost is not the part that they are going after the most. They are trying to claim that the site, the ACA, the president, the democratic party, and all things that are not in line with Randian philosophy, are all epic failures. If it had been put together with all volunteer work and $100 worth of cabling for donated hardware and connectivity, the authors would still be tripping over each other to see who could bash it the hardest. And most likely, that bashing would have found its way to the slashdot front page.

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

    by ganjadude (952775) on Friday December 13, 2013 @10:03AM (#45680087) Homepage
    IF insurance worked as every other kind of insurance that would be fine, what we have is not health insurance though. We use insurance to go in for a cold, we use them when we get the flu, we use them for EVERY aspect of health care. that is by definition not insurance. For a car analogy it would be like putting in a claim every time we got an oil change or pumped gas even. IF we only had insurance to cover catastrophic injuries/terminal illness, and instead took care of ourselves for a common cold the system would be working much much better
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2013 @10:03AM (#45680097)

    ACA is closer to corporate welfare than social welfare. It mandates that people do business with corporations. That's a corporatist's wet dream.

    The car analogy is some people pushing for public transit (a single-payer system) and then "compromising" by requiring everybody to buy a car (ACA). The whole thing is one big non sequitur. I can't believe the D's are claiming this as some sort of success. It looks more like something the R's would get behind.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein