Discussion for article #228613
Huh? This article seems internally inconsistent:
“Somehow, some way…”
followed by
“The Oregonian reported that the problem of double-enrollment – ineligible enrollees being placed in Medicaid – had been a recurring issue for Oregon.”
It’s not exactly a giant mystery qualifying for “somehow, some way” shocked status if it’s a known problem that’s been recurring. And yeah, “somehow, some way” = bad coding. Do we need the details of where they left off a comma or semicolon, thus screwing up the syntax of the entire script (or whatever)? Nope.
2 Likes
as a long time fan of Gov. Kitzhaber, I am sort of glad that he appears to have escaped being tarred and feathered for the Cover Oregon debacle. I want him to win in November, but if I am being honest, his administration really messed this up, and has avoided being held accountable.
3 Likes
True, that and doing the Columbia Crossing all by our lonesome with no $$ from Washington. I’m not certain that Kitz has been that involved in governing these past four years but Dennis Richardson? I’d vote for Sasquatch dung before I’d vote for Richardson!.
2 Likes
Planned sabotage of the Oregon exchange by a TPer-owned company?
1 Like
Oh we’re back to using the word “disastrous”.
Yay.
2 Likes
True. But really it was a couple of teanuts in WA who derailed CRC. And I thing Kitz was right to refuse to drop light rail. Vancouver is going to regret the hell out of not doing light rail one of these days.
You mean like when the day comes that Portland starts charging drivers each time they enter downtown ala Hong kong?
Or perhaps when we simply start charging Washington commuters for each trip they make?
Yes, Kitz was right to not drop light rail. And I’m opposed to building more highway lanes to accommodate more traffic and pollution.
It was a bit of a clusterfuck, and I ended up enrolling with a paper application, but I have health care coverage for the first time in years, so I’m happy.
1 Like
Based on my experiences with the Oregon exchange I believe either corporate or government-level shenanigans. I have email evidence where they informed me there was a secret rulebook to determine eligibility when I inquired why we had been turned down for a program that every published requirement said we were absolutely qualified for.
I also have evidence that the original form was ambiguously written such that it led people to fill the form out incorrectly–the way it read you checked a box indicating the same info was for all applicants but, in fact, you had to hand write the same information for each applicant. We are a family of eight; our application was nearly forty pages. Two months after we applied we got a letter saying we had neglected to completely fill in the form and they sent a new for us to fill out. I knew full well I had not omitted anything, but carefully checked it over, then printed out the 40 pages again and mailed it back. A month after that they got back to us and finally explained that the original form was misleading. Rather than tell us after the first two months that they chose to mail us a copy of the new form and let us do another forty pages of work. It took three months just to find out that the form was wrong.
I finally gave up, which I am guessing is what they intended in the first place.
We experienced the glitch as well. I applied online, and when it didn’t go through I applied on paper. No problems after that with the state’s processing. The insurer sent us the form for corrections then misspelled my son’s name! That one was on the company, not the State.
After 10 years with no insurance at all, this seemed like small potatoes.
2 Likes
I’ll bet the Obama Administration will count two enrollees though!.
Doesn’t that deserve “two” dumb comments?
1 Like