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.'"

Comments

So...

[Beavertank]

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.

Thanks Oracle.

[Nerrd]

Take a look at the backstory: http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/12/oregons_health_exchange_woes_s_1.html

Cherry-pick, much?

[artor3]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Cherry-pick, much?

[Above]

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

Multiple stories corroborate 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 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:

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 on junk plans. How bad are these plans?

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 o

Broken website; Not a broken law.

[ndykman]

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.

[artor3]

What then is left? Well... we have the emperical fact of the healthcare premiums going up. That's a fact.

Premiums always go up, it's called inflation. But the rate of increase is near all time lows.

We have 70 percent of doctors in many areas boycotting the ACA. That is a fact.

No, it's not a fact. It's a straight up lie. You're just gullible.

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.

That's an anecdote. I could dig up dozens of counter examples, but why waste my time? You're just performing a Gish Gallop.

Pathetic

[laird]

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?

Or just maybe

[Virtucon]

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

[ebno-10db]

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:The more poor that sign up, the more the rich p

[duckintheface]

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

[Beavertank]

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."

From an Oregonian...

[maccodemonkey]

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.

Re:News for Nerds?

[fahrbot-bot]

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?

[AK Marc]

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

[AK Marc]

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.

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

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:News for Nerds?

[cold fjord]

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

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.

Blame Q-Corp not the ACA

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:News for Nerds?

[maharvey]

I think only 44 people caring about not getting ripped by health care companies constitutes mass stupidity.

You mean only 44 people were stupid enough to fall for the rip-off, or else in sufficiently desperate medical need.

Have you actually looked at the cost/benefit of the plans in Oregon's ACA offerings? I did. The cheapest bronze plan (and the ACA is supposed to benefit the poor right?) costs 119/mo. Sounds like a bargain right? But after considering the 5250.00 deductible, and the fact that it only covers 60% of costs after the deductible is met, you'd have to spend 198.00 a month in medical bills to break even on having insurance, vs paying out of pocket.

Maybe a silver or gold plan is better? Here's the "highest quality" silver plan according to Oregon's ACA website: 242.00/mo premiums, but it doesn't pay for itself unless you have at least 300.00/mo in health costs. Invariably the better the plan, the higher the break even point, and thus the worse the value. Of course its disguised with low copays and stuff. The only way these are worthwhile is if you have very high costs, month after month.

Oh, and those are the subsidized rates. For someone like me, with an income, the premiums will be much higher, adn therefore the break even will also be correspondingly higher.

This is a huge scam... I spend maybe 300 a year... and I'm in my mid 40s, well past the point of being a "young invincible". I pay it out of pocket through a HDHP. Why would I want to go spend 1200 a year for a super cheap plan, which won't even pay anything because I'll never even get past the deductible? My out of pocket would quintuple, up to 1500/year, with absolutely no benefit.

For "young invicibles" with health costs approaching zero, one is WAY better off paying 600/year in penalties and paying your medical costs out of pocket, than getting suckered into Obamacare.

I know it's supposed to be some sort of communistic wealth redistribution. I am supposed to pay more than my fair share so that someone else can pay less than theirs. Fuck that! Why are they so special? I work for my money, I paid my dues, and no it wasn't fun. It was sacrifice. That I paid. Where the hell is my special treatment? Maybe I should quit my job and let you all support ME for free. Raise my taxes enough, take away my motivation for work and maybe I'll do just that.

Re:News for Nerds?

[ShanghaiBill]

A Capitalist is anyone that invests in property. Whether that be a car, an iPhone, a house

No. Capital only refers to investment in productive assets, not private property in general.

Socialists on the other hand feel that the state and or society has a right to either that property or the benefits from the use of said property over the rights of the owner.

Nonsense. No socialist/communist government has ever completely banned private property. Socialism only refers to government ownership of the means of production.

Re: News for Nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:News for Nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand what "insurance" is or how it's supposed to work. It works like this: Most people don't get their money's worth back. That's mathematically how every insurance pool in the world works. You pay in money you will likely never take advantage of for the safety of being taken care of if you happen to get the statistical short straw.

Re:News for Nerds?

[The Grim Reefer]

(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:News for Nerds?

[dkleinsc]

You seem to have misunderstood the point of insurance. The way it works is that you pay more than you need to most of the time on the off chance that something goes horribly wrong.

For example, you probably pay for car insurance. Most of the time, that's simply an expense with no benefit to you whatsoever. The reason you have it, though, is that the insurance company eats almost all of the expense if some idiot slams into your car at 90 mph on the highway.

Ditto for homeowners or renters insurance: Most of the time, it's purely expense. But if your house burns down, guess who you're going to be calling?

Medical insurance isn't really that different: Most of the time, you pay in more than you pay out. That's to offset your expenses when you discover that you have leukemia (as a generally pretty healthy friend of mine did just last Sunday). Or do you really think you have the cash on hand to just pay a $450,000 hospital bill?

Re:News for Nerds?

[damn_registrars]

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.