Several whistle-blowers came forward and said that this lady, Carolyn Lawson, was "abusing and misusing state resources". Oregon's OHA director Bruce Goldberg thought that these were personality conflicts.

Also, she was accused of and investigated for mismanaging contracts when she worked for the state of California. In one instance she tried to award a no-bid contract to her previous boss.

I don't think she has a leg to stand on.

I live in Oregon. I have been trying to buy health insurance for myself and my family of 4. Because of my income, I am ineligible for any subsidies. My case is a very simple one. I am paying full price for a health insurance plan. However I cannot register on the damn website or buy insurance. The only way for me to register an account on the website is by mailing in a paper application. I have done that. They called me to confirm that they have received the application and are processing it. They have hired 500 people to process paper applications. These people have yet to enter my paper application into the computer.

How did Oracle receive $130 million for developing this website when I cannot even register a damn account on this website, much less select and buy insurance?

I was a Canon man. But they have seriously dropped the ball in the image sensor department. They continue to use ancient sensors that simply cannot compete in today's market. I sold all my Canon cameras and lenses and moved to Nikon and could not be happier. I do not have to resort to hacks to get an image that is close to a Nikon image.

I am trying to understand what the big deal about any of it is? If I am a phone manufacturer or a hobbyist, I have the option to use Android as-is without Google Play.

With Android you get a lot for free. With Apple, RIM and MS, not so much. The poster is complaining that with Android *everything is not free*. Horror of horrors! It is an extremely stupid post!!!

I'd take a mostly open mobile OS where you have to pay for some things over a mostly closed mobile OS where you have to pay for most things.

I live in Oregon. And I plan to sign up for Obamacare. I am self employed and make enough money to not qualify for any subsidies. I have a fiber internet connection.

I am having some difficulty trying to understand the point you are trying to make.

> Well, the Obamacare compliant plans cost literally over four times as much per month to get comparable insurance.

Please provide information about the policy you had. Policy name and the provider. This would allow us to verify the claim you are making. If you cannot, then we'll assume you were making it up.

When you link to Washington Times (crackpots), you undermine anything you have to say.

> My three cars, together, barely cost me $30k

The EVs cost more. No doubt. But lets not get carried away by comparing the prices on the cars you bought used. For a direct comparison, lets stick with MSRP.

Reminds of the time when Yahoo turned down $47.5B from Microsoft in 2008. They have regretted it since.

> I haven't heard that anywhere though.

You might want to reconsider where you get your information from.

> Sure, they can't "deny" you coverage but that doesn't mean they can't charge you extra if you smoke or have a family history of cancer or something.

They can charge you more, if you smoke. Smoking is a choice. However under Obamacare they cannot charge you more if you have family history of cancer or actually have cancer yourself.

> And remember, if you need telephone assistance with Healthcare.gov, call the help line at 1-800-F1UCKYO. That's really the number - they're not even hiding how much they care.

Sounds like someone desperately trying to find something negative about the phone number. And not govt. intentionally trying to offer an offensive phone number to people for healthcare assistance.

ACA has issues of its own. You do not need to make up stuff to make it look bad.

> You should do what Google wants. What's the big deal? What's wrong with you?

In exchange for creating a G+ profile, Google offers many services. Some of us think that is a fair transaction. We don't put anything in the G+ profile we don't want shared with the rest of the world. Many of us are willing to live with this compromise.

Nobody can guarantee your privacy online. Not Facebook, not Apple, not Microsoft and not Google. If you don't want something shared with the world. Do not put it up there. Once you start treating all of these as equally insecure places, then you'll start to wonder why people are bitching about one in particular.

> Has the privacy disaster that is Facebook not once entered your brain after all these years?

For the eleventh time, nobody is forcing you to add any information you do not want to share. If you have G+ account with no information in it, that is pretty close to not having an account. Do not add any information to it that you do not want to be public. Is that really hard?

What is in it for you? You get to use a Google service for free. That's what. Obviously nobody is forcing you. So there is little room to complain.

So you don't want to give your information to the man. Then don't! Nobody puts a gun to your head to do that. Just create an account in any name you want, could be John Doe, could be your real name. What precisely is the issue with this?

Are you afraid that you'll "accidentally" add friends to your Google+ account and then add more information about yourself to your account when nobody is forcing you to?

I keep seeing the seeing these paranoid critters screaming bloody murder about being forced to use Google+. What exactly is the issue with creating a Google+ account and not adding any information you do not want to share? Please enlighten me!