Oregon gets national notice in health exchange bust

WatchdogBy Taxpayer Association of Oregon

First it was Portland journalist, David Kline, who wrote this fantastic article article on how Cover Oregon application asks questions that are IMPOSSIBLE to ANSWER because of their circular reasoning. Kline’s article was first featured in the Oregonian and then went national in the Wall Street Journal and Real Clear Politics. It is a must read article.

Then the lead story on NBC news that featured a cameo by Oregon Congressman Greg Walden (around 2:00 mark) grilling Obamacare Health Exchange website designers on their failed roll-out times. Watch the NBC news video below.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 07:06 | Posted in Uncategorized | 28 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Maximus

    I wonder if MR. Kline’s application issue is the same for other states?

  • Bob Clark

    The overall costs of health care are suppose to become lower than otherwise because of the Affordable Care Act. This is premised in large measure on less costly emergency room visits by the uninsured. Yet this doesn’t appear to be what is happening. Many folks are seeing their premiums increased, their coverage changed to less of what they preferred, and hundreds of thousands of folks get refundable tax credits (subsidies) for more coverage than they previously sought. What’s more there still is going be large number of folks just showing up without insurance to emergency rooms even with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), simply because the most that can happen to them is if they should be so fortunate as to be owed a refund on their income taxes; they will get less of a refund for having not enrolled in the ACA.

    So, I would rate the ACA a most probable bad policy choice. In the end, it is a bit more than just ironic the Obama administration turns to a private company (United Health) to bail out the technology aspect of the ACA. Maybe, the government should have had less of a role in healthcare reform rather than more as embedded in the ACA. I guess if you want an ever bigger welfare state (on the road to Greece), the ACA was a good first step, though.

    • DavidAppell

      Many folks are seeing their premiums increased

      Typically, you provide no data to support this assertion.

      • Myke

        And you provide none to the opposite. That, in effect, makes you the same.

        • DavidAppell

          The claim was your’s, not mine. Do you have data to support it, or it is something you made up to make yourself feel better?

      • Ron Spicer

        WHy publish what is already published in fact, No need to run out pages of data to sooth you wanting mind.

        • DavidAppell

          Published where? You’re another one who has no data to offer.

          • R S

            We like keeping mushrooms in the dark.

      • Ron Spicer

        ACA is a poor attempt at load leveling on the front side, more in the pool the lower the percentage of the total using medical services. Bub does nothing for the picture of lowering cost for procedures and therefore not affordable for any one. Adding the new regulations it is actually costing more if you need a procedure and adding more delay. Oh if you want facts then talk with my doctor, she will provide them to your hearts content.

        • DavidAppell

          The ACA was written to make insurers happy; that’s our political system these days. Nothing else would have ever gotten passed, certainly not something reasonable like most other countries have.

          Many people are getting rich off the American health care system, and Americans will need to suffer still more until they wise up and demand a single payer system.

          • R S

            Welfare for hospitals, that is what your liking. Sounds like socialism for hospitals. How do I get mine.

          • R S

            You were the one wanting ACA and therefore welfare for hospitals.

          • DavidAppell

            Some hospitals need “welfare,” because they provide uncompensated care to the uninsured and underinsured.The Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital program currently disburses $11.5 billion annually to the states to do so. The ACA allows that funding to be reduced by $18.1 billion between FY2014 and FY2020

          • R S

            Predicted as it has not happened yet.

          • Mark Bixler

            And then they’ll suffer more and so will everyone else. The ACA was not the solution to our problems.

          • DavidAppell

            Since Republicans refused to participate in the design of the plan, you get what you got.

            Next time, show up.

          • Mark Bixler

            You talking about the bill nobody read?

          • DavidAppell

            You mean like the Patriot Act the Republicans rammed through?

          • Mark Bixler

            What’s the Patriot Act have to do with the ACA? Are you playing Hatfield and McCoy politics?

          • DavidAppell

            It was another law rammed through with on one reading it.

            At least be consistent.

          • .

            A raucous raspberry over to Appelljoose’s drools.

  • JacklordGOD

    The premise of the ACA is manifest idiocy, It goes something like this.

    1 – People who don’t get insurance drive up the cost for those who do by stiffing hospitals with the bill. OK, this is true.

    2 – Therefore insurance costs can be lowered for everyone by forcing people to buy insurance. OK, this sounds plausible.

    3 – The savings realized by eliminating hospital bill skippers mentioned above will be so great that not only can we can force insurance companies to provide greater benefits (eliminate pre existing conditions, no lifetime cap etc.) for less money, but we can also pay for insurance for the 40Mil uninsured and still it will cost less.

    The exact figure for how much less? Well, according to Obama that was supposed to be $2,500 per year.

    That, in a nutshell, is absolute idiocy of what we were asked to believe with the Obamacare sales pitch. There was no way it was ever true.

    Anyone who pointed out that it seemed very difficult to believe that all those ER visits for an aspirin by uninsured louts were racking up costs that, were they insured, could have realized a savings to insure 40 Million was originally called a racist.

    Frankly right about now I would be surprised if the savings from Obamacare were enough to pay for HealthCare Dot Gov, the worlds most expensive non functioning web site.

    At some point we will all have to face facts – The essential premise of Obamacare – that elimination of ER visits by uninsured ne’er do wells is enough to give a massive increase in benefits to those already insured, as well as cover the aforementioned 40 million ne’er do wells is positively inane.

    So what is the strategy going forward?

    For the short term what you will see is web site excuses. That much is obvious. This will extend long enough that the original promises of Obamacare will become lost in the mists of time.

    Bringing up the point of $2,500 saving will result in a cocked head look from your liberal friends, as if a pet Corgi heard a high pitched sound. They will feign complete ignorance of the promise.

    If the 40 million uninsured is brought up the left will fire breath indignation. If that number is lowered to 39,999,999 they will crow “sucess” and “well, one more with insurance is better than Romney could have done, fascist!”.

    Premiums going up? That is going to be the best of all. If your premiums go up, you will likely get the backhanded insult of “well, maybe you can qualify for some of the subsidies”.

    And therein lies the ultimate indictment of Obamacare.

    The original premise being, all the insured were subsidizing the uninsured through higher premium costs for all those ER visits to get an aspirin.

    Now the answer seems to be…..ta da! subsidizing everyone’s insurance rates.

    In other words even if Obamacare works as planned, the cornerstone of it is one group of people subsidizing another.

    So the next time the left stands up and says “This is wrong, responsible people who bought insurance shouldnt be subsidizing irresponsible people who didn’t and have to go to the ER” realize you are hearing a line of total BS.

    The left has zero interest in rewarding responsible behavior, because responsible behavior generally results in less government dependency.

    • DavidAppell

      Rupert Huse of Springfield, OR:

      In other words even if Obamacare works as planned, the cornerstone of it is one group of people subsidizing another.

      That is the cornerstone of ALL insurance. All of it. You take those subsidies when you need them, and give them when you do not (to others who DO need them).

    • DavidAppell

      Rupert Huse of Springfield, OR wrote:
      The left has zero interest in rewarding responsible behavior

      I wonder if your customers, who, given your line of business (no comment…..), surely include lots of liberals, know of your disdain for them?

      • .

        David Appell, resounds like ‘Theodore’ biased in SCAMania County, WAh.

        • thevillageidiot

          No, DA is one of the reasons Oregon is in its current financial state.

          • Stroker Martin

            How about bussing DA off to DC to mission something michael moore in line with his IQ – like squawking about the name of the NFL team bearing a proud name association with aboriginal inhabitants.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)