Comments 1 - 21 of 21 Search these comments
This earlier thread about an Oregonian remains worth remembering, as it illustrates why the provider lobbies wrote Obamneycare the way they did.
Oregon had got "$305 million in federal grants to build the exchange...."
"Thanks, Obamacare!"
The idea of writing and operating 51 exchanges was idiotic from the beginning. What a waste of money.
The idea of writing and operating 51 exchanges was idiotic from the beginning. What a waste of money.
bbbut federalism is freedom!
When I was studying real estate law the penny dropped that federalism was really about full-employment for lawyers first and foremost.
Ugh - another self-styled "progressive" attempt to resurrect a stinking corpse that should have been buried. The self-styled "progressive" Democrats have fetishized insurance, because that maximizes power for their patronage networks (including revenue for their newfound backers at PhRMA), and refuse to acknowledge that the insurance they're selling does not translate into actual health. They don't care. They use words like "health" as empty slogans to sell their mandatory subsidized insurance plan. When the data show more spending without actual health benefit, self-styled "progressives" reply with a quasi-religious rapture about spreading insurance. They are proselytizing for a cult and they won't take no for an answer, insisting that insurance is the light and the truth and the way regardless of what those pesky facts might disprove.
The idea of writing and operating 51 exchanges was idiotic from the beginning. What a waste of money.
bbbut federalism is freedom!
When I was studying real estate law the penny dropped that federalism was really about full-employment for lawyers first and foremost.
So you think 50 states duplicating the federal government's website to run a federal government program is about freedom? There is far too much duplication of government services now because everyone has their little patch of turf to protect. The federal governments prime function should be coordinating with the states to get the best results for the money, not duplicating the states programs and the states duplicating the federal government. Ridiculous.
Good Grief. Just how hard is it to design a system like this? Who exactly did they hire to do the development work? Could it be H-1B's?
I guess going with the cheapest people is not always the best thing to do.
Mini Resume:
25+ years Tandem/HP Nonstop
COBOL, SCOBOL, TAL, C, TACL, PATHWAY, ENFORM, Enscribe, SQL, SQLCI, Reportwriter
Good Grief. Just how hard is it to design a system like this? Who exactly did they hire to do the development work? Could it be H-1B's?
Probably ex microsoft people.
The self-styled "progressive" Democrats have fetishized insurance, because that maximizes power for their patronage networks (including revenue for their newfound backers at PhRMA), and refuse to acknowledge that the insurance they're selling does not translate into actual health.
OK, so what's your alternative plan?
The idea of writing and operating 51 exchanges was idiotic from the beginning. What a waste of money.
I thought Obama said it was 57???
I don't listen to Obama or anything about Obama so I wouldn't know.
This earlier thread about an Oregonian remains worth remembering, as it illustrates why the provider lobbies wrote Obamneycare the way they did.
Obamney care - love it!
As for your linked article, I pay $150/month for medical insurance for a family. My wife gave birth in December and stayed as long as she wanted in the hospital, where she was waited on hand and foot - and all rooms are private. She stayed for 5 months days (duh).
My co-pay for pre-natal care inc. bi-monthly doctor visits with an ultrasound each and every time, plus delivery by two European Doctors and 5 days in the hospital? $300.
My charge for a circumcision? $800 for one procedure - not very common, only one guy does 'em.
I see the humor in your article, but it doesn't answer my question: What's your alternative plan?
It's not that there aren't plenty of problems w/the present law - there are - but I have yet to see one alternative besides single-payer that's worth a shit.
About three weeks after Cover Oregon went live, Cover Oregon CTO Garrett Reynolds emailed his boss, CIO Aaron Karjala, a damning review by Reynolds' team of Oracle's work. "The review shows that the Oracle development team's quality of the work was atrocious and that they broke every single development best practice that Oracle themselves have defined," Reynolds wrote. "It is one of the worst assessments I have performed in my 18 years of Siebel work." (Oracle bought Siebel years ago and has incorporated it into its various products.)
At that point, Oracle switched gears, admitted the site was a mess, and pointed fingers at Oregon. As far as Oracle is concerned, "Cover Oregon lacked the skills, knowledge, or ability to be successful as the systems integrator on an undertaking of this scope and complexity," Oracle President Safra Catz said in a letter to Cover Oregon.
No doubt, there's blame to be had at Care Oregon. Remember that positive InformationWeek story? Its report relied on statements from Cover Oregon CIO Karjala, who in the weeks before its launch gave no indication of major issues and in fact crowed to the press about the care his team took to do it right, surely as part of an Oracle-sponsored media effort. Karjala has since resigned from Cover Oregon at the request of the state's governor, after a review found significant management failures."
It's always a good idea to switch from bogus software that doesn't work to bogus software that doesn't work better, especially if it is cheaper.
bogus software that doesn't work to bogus software that doesn't work better,
Bogus software to run a bogus plan promoted by a bogus president. I'm seeing a pattern here.
Oracle and Oregon are now suing each other, with Oregon also alleging potentially criminal misconduct:
[Oregon's] filing comes two weeks after Oracle filed its own suit against Oregon in federal court, claiming its product worked by February, blasting the state for mismanagement, and demanding $23 million."
Still today there are ads for Programmers who have experience in software development for the healthcare industry. News flash, they need people with a new perspective on the "Way it's done now" the way it's done now, is a Nationwide system failure. From their IT bureaucratic mentality that defers any action until hundreds of man hours are wasted on meeting with people who have nothing to do with the programming. To the HR stupid Asses, who's Idea of the perfect candidate is someone who just graduated yesterday, but has 10 years of professional experience. They tend to chose candidates based on Resume Bingo.
To the overly complicated and convoluted libraries that they paint their developers into a corner to use. Then have impossible deadlines, that between the learning curve of the new technology then the dismal performance because it's so bloated. Every software launch in Corporate America across the board, is a horrendous complete failure, 80% of the time or more.
It's not that there aren't plenty of problems w/the present law - there are - but I have yet to see one alternative besides single-payer that's worth a shit.
You keep missing the point. The ever increasing cost of medical care is the problem, just like ever increasing cost of housing and education.
Insuring everyone through Obamacare only guarantees more money flow for the same group of people.
"The progressive state's ambitious vision for its exchange, its colossal multimillion-dollar failure, and the inability to fix the glitch-filled site illustrate the...challenges for states that decided to build their own exchanges.
Oregon, which so far has failed to enroll a single person in coverage in one sitting through its exchange, decided to ditch the exchange because officials said fixing it would be too costly at $78 million and would take too long. Switching to the federal system will cost just $4 million to $6 million and is the least risky option."
This follows Oregon's Medicaid expansion experiment, which found "no significant improvement" in patients' health, but much higher spending.