Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Signs Up Just 44 People For Obamacare Despite Spending $300 Million
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.'"
Does this really belong on /.? Seriously?
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.
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
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.
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.
Take a look at the backstory: http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/12/oregons_health_exchange_woes_s_1.html
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/18/the-other-side-of-obamacares-oregon-success-no-one-has-bought-private-insurance/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/oregon-obamacare-website_n_4308629.html
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.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
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, thank you.
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.
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?
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
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.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
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.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
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."
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.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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
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 ), 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.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Wikipedia Washington Examiner Political Views
Clearly a "news organ" of impeccable journalism like the Korean Central News Agency of the Democratic Republic of North Korea or Fox news.
No ideological bias here. Nothing to see, just move along...
Why is Snark Required?
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
One piece of the Affordable Care Act has been rolled out terribly.
It's not even the most important part.
The really important pieces of the Affordable Care Act have been in place for months now.
Stuff like requiring insurance companies to spend ~80% of premiums on health care
and not disqualifying you because of a pre-existing condition. Or how about removing lifetime caps on coverage.
I could go on, but the Affordable Care Act has a lot of other moving pieces.
Eventually people will get signed up and then all the criticism will have done naught but poison the atmosphere.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
the Affordable Care Act has absolutely nothing to do with Cover Oregon's problems.
the Cover Oregon website was a system devised with the influence of the insurance and health care *industry* to channel people to for-profit companies.
here is an NPR (Oregon Public Broadcasting) story that examines a person trying to use the site step-by-step: http://www.opb.org/news/article/are-health-insurance-companies-ranking-themselves-on-coveroregon/
the Cover Oregon website is only part of Oregon's rollout of Obamacare...they have 30,000 paper applications waiting to be processed
So there are several problems with your criticism of the ACA and socialized medicine in general
1. the ACA and 'Obamacare' is not socialized medicine (i wish it was)...it is a federal government subsidy of personal and business insurance executed in the federal system by either the states or the federal government itself
2. Cover Oregon's online system was made by a company funded by the insurance industry
3. Cover Oregon's website lists **ONLY** insurance plans from health care companies
4. "Cover Oregon" is a program, not a website. The **program** has signed at least 30,000 people to date which is alot more than 44
So you are wrong in every part of your premise.
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.
I am officially gone from