Inside USA TODAY
- We asked this question to our Facebook followers:
- Of those who picked one of the options given: Two answered A, three answered B, one C, ten D, and only one E. The number of respondents claiming to have actually used the site were few.
- For others, 'the good far outweighs the bad'
- This is just another way the GOP has let down their constituants. By refusing to build a state exchange and refusing to expand medicaid, they have denied many people access to health care. Our State-run exchange is working just fine, thank you. Spite is not a good way to make policy decisions. Real conservatives can do math. A notable exception is Jan Brewer (AZ), she knows when a deal is too good to pass up.
- John--I don't want the government in that many areas of my life! What is going to happen when all of my confidential medical (EHR) information has to be forwarded by my doc to the Data Hub, along with the accompanying identifying personal ID material & financial info? Exactly what is the justification for that? Is it realistic to expect that there will be adequate protection against identity theft in that venue, when it's current policy to not even do background checks on ACA "navigators"?
- Julie--As a surgeon, I spent years dealing with the Medicare & Medicaid bureaucracies & know how badly they can mangle management of simple properly-filled-out forms. That is why I have very good reason to doubt that an even larger bureaucracy will be even less efficient, as well as even less trustworthy. The original explanation given for the centralization of EHR's was so that coordination of lab & imaging studies could be done in order to prevent duplication of studies (as if the patient were incapable of saying, "I already had that done."). Consider the sheer volume of studies done on a daily basis in this country--does that rationale even make sense? How many people reviewing the data would it take? Lack of government centralization of health records would not deny anyone's (or everyone's) having health insurance. It is the first step toward a single-payor, universal-coverage, government-run system, however, isn't it?What Congress has been doing has no effect on whether the website for signing up for insurance exchanges works or not--Congress has no say in the computer programming contracts & the massive cost overruns.
- Ditto Karen. Robert Gibbs said it best this weekend when he told An MSNBC "the government run web site was a huge embarrassment". now if you understand what has been created the government exchanges take over in states that have opted for that option. Gibbs went on to say that it wasn't just a glitch but a structural problem. No Beta test . So now you are trusting a government that can't even oversee a web site. note that Medicare costs were ten fold over what the CBO estimated after years. and if that isn't enough read how Karen will be treated on page 346 of the OC bill. Karen, why did the AMA cave? can't figure it out when every Dr I talk to hates this solution to rising health care costs?
Outside USA TODAY
- Site still down and a confusing question
- What does Obamacare have to do with ceiling fans? Leave it to Jimmy Kimmel. His Confusing Question of the Day: