Skip to main content

Disaster Obamacare Rollout Rolling Over A Cliff

I can’t add much meaningful commentary to the Obamacare roll out disaster.  There has been a deserved tsunami of criticism and derision across the political spectrum.  Democrats are sprinting for the exits.  Many of them in their last campaign repeated the sound bite of 2013, “If you want to keep your doctor…”.  Of course, without the miracle of video tape, these obfuscators would simply deny their own words. 

The disaster rollout is a travesty on so many levels.   We should not forgive any institution that produces an abject failure after 3 years of preparation and nearly $600 million when they have been crowing for months about the October 1st start date.  It did start something, but not what the government wanted.   More incredible is that the government was told by experts prior to the launch that the website was not even half baked, and yet they rolled it out anyway.  Is there any reader who can explain this decision to me?   If we knew that a plane had mechanical defects, would we still board it?

Used by Obamacare Webmasters

The website is a sorry example of why many of us are so skeptical and cynical of expansive governmental liberalism.   This is not a partisan swipe, but a recognition and validation of those who prefer the ingenuity and expertise of private enterprise. Which institution do you admire more, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or Fed Ex?

Beyond the website fiasco, millions of American have had their insurance plans cancelled who are then directed to the website which doesn’t work.  Would it be fair to fine these folks if they aren’t able to sign on to a health plan because of government incompetence?   Those who do receive divine intervention and penetrate the web site cannot divine if their doctors will be on the plans.  Additionally, many premier hospitals are declining to participate in the exchange plans, which will shut out many patients.  And, after the Obama ‘apology’, insurance companies who have been scrambling over for the past few years to comply with Obamacare mandates are now told, ‘never mind’.  

Cyber experts testified in congress that personal confidential data is not secure.  Another glitch?

A few weeks back the administration promised that by the end of November the website would be working for the vast majority of users.  The term vast majority was not defined.  Considering, the creative way that these Obamaphiles use words, perhaps, 25% of users will constitute a majority.  More recently, they are promising that 80% of Americans will glide through the website by month’s end.  Watch the Obama numbers plumbers massage the data to make sure that the 80% threshold is reached.  Somehow, lots of folks who will not be able get the website to work won’t be counted. 

Is 80% ‘success’ after years of preparation and gazillions of dollars a worthy goal?   Before we had Obamacare, 85% of Americans had health insurance.  I guess that insuring only 85% of American’s is a failure, but an 80% success rate for the website is a great victory. 
Would we be satisfied with an 80% success rate in other spheres of our lives?
  • A taxi driver reaches his destination 80% of the time.
  • A gastroenterologist properly cleans and disinfects his instruments 80% of the time.
  • A pharmacist dispenses the proper medicine 80% of the time.
  • Google Maps is accurate 80% of the time.
  • A dentist extracts the correct tooth 80% of the time.
  • Traffic signals operate correctly 80% of the time.
  • An ATM dispenses the correct amount of money 80% of the time.
  • A journalist is accurate 80% of the time.
  • An airplane lands safely…
I try to be informative, factually correct and even entertaining on every Whistleblower post.  Clearly, this super human standard is beyond reach.  From now on, I will strive to create worthy essays in the vast majority of my postings, a threshold that the government will soon be defining for us.   Can you say out loud in public that 51.5% is a vast majority with a straight face?  If you can, then you should be in government. 


  1. The site's issues are not far-reaching, in that the market will either be debugged/emended, or abdicated to insurers. We need a disquisition on Obamacare’s palmary, not the inconsequential politics

    The oft-repeated talking point is that the uninsured will be covered, with the expectation that the connection between primary care services and emergency rooms will be forfeited. This assertion will be redargued by the uninsured themselves by their refusal to pay for subsidized insurance, and the continued use of hospitals

    The premise that succedaneuming convenience/free with pride/payment isn't a realistic goal, and secondly, the reimbursement valorization will be an economic restriction to physician access.

  2. I believe that the comment above from one with a prodigious vocabulary can be paraphrased to 'Obamacare is not good'.

  3. At least let me indite my own peroration syntomy: ACA is a cacodoxy

    Tell me, did my editing obligate a dictionary? ;-)

  4. I hate to obumbrate your neophrastic comment with a logomachy, but my epeolatry, and lexiphanic use is best described as a loganamnosis presenting with verbomania.

    Albeit there is a clever insult in the definiens of your biverbal remark –but alas, I believe your talent is luck ;-)

  5. There are numerous reasons for the debacle that was the Affordable Care rollout but the one that no one is talking about is that it was a lame attempt to reform the system of private insurance instead of abolishing private insurance. We already have a universal government health insurance program that has actually been working very well for 50 years, called Medicare. The real solution would be a single-payer system for the rest of the population of our country. Too bad it was and will remain politically impossible. Perhaps we will be ready for "socialized medicine" - Horrors! - when our great system of private medical care is ready to bankrupt us all.

  6. I assume, David, that single payer to you means the government. With what we have all witnessed thus far, are you comfortable with this prospect?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why This Doctor Gave Up Telemedicine

During the pandemic, I engaged in telemedicine with my patients out of necessity.  This platform was already destined to become part of the medical landscape even prior to the pandemic.  COVID-19 accelerated the process.  The appeal is obvious.  Patients can have medical visits from their own homes without driving to the office, parking, checking in, finding their way to the office, biding time in the waiting room and then driving out afterwards.  And patients could consult physicians from far distances, even across state lines.  Most of the time invested in traditional office visits occurs before and after the actual visits.  So much time wasted! Indeed, telemedicine has answered the prayers of time management enthusiasts. At first, I was also intoxicated treating patients via cyberspace, or telemedically, if I may invent a term.   I could comfortably sink into my own couch in sweatpants as I guided patients through the heartbreak of hemorrhoids and the distress of diarrhea.   Clear

Am I Spreading Covid-19 Misinformation?

I presume that most of us are hostile to hate speech, misinformation and disinformation.  Politicians and others want social media to be scrubbed of all nefarious postings.  Twitter is most recently in the crosshairs on this issue after Elon Musk assumed ownership of the company.  They still haven’t settled on a moderation policy.  Social media and other information sources have been accused of radicalizing Americans, fostering hate, undermining our elections, providing a forum for bullies and predators, promoting division and coarsening our national discourse.  One man’s cleansing of disinformation is another man’s censorship. There is some speech that all reasonable people would agree should be banned, such as incitement to violence or prurient matter that children can access.   I challenge those who advocate against publishing hate speech, misinformation or disinformation to offer precise definitions of these categories.   Trust me, this is no easy endeavor.     And if you are

Whistleblower Grand Rounds Vol. 6 No. 22: It’s ‘Alimentary’, Doctors!

It’s been a while since I’ve attended a conventional medical Grand Rounds. These were events where a medical luminary would fly in to give a medical audience a state-of-the-art presentation on a medical subject. Ideally, the speaker was a thought leader and a researcher on the issue. These presentations were usually not a demonstration of the virtue of humility. We physicians, as a class, have generous egos. Academic physicians occupy a higher rung on the ego ladder. Medical Grand Rounders (MGRs), who are on the GR speaking circuit, often must bring their own ladders to assure they will be able to reach their desired atmospheric height. Jacob’s Ladder Photo Credit At least in the old days, before the GR speaker would assume his position behind the rostrum, a designated pre-speaker would offer an introduction. The audience would hear a list of awards, achievements, journal editorial positions, department chairmanships, honorary degrees, publications and book chapter authorships,