Jump to content

Over 6 Million Now Enrolled In Private Insurance Through Obamacare.


Recommended Posts

The problem with both parties is that only the crazies are motivated enough to go to the meetings. Anyone normal shows up and they're too creeped out by the insanity to come back.

Despite all of the good in Obamacare, you have to temper that with the fact that we just handed an incompetent Government control of a large portion of the economy. You don't fix bad government with more government.

So is the government running the policies and administering them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 762
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So is the government running the policies and administering them?

In a way... they're writing the guidelines, deadlines and price caps. Then the IRS manipulates the other half of the market, the consumer.

Who really runs a football team, the Owner or the GM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

RAND: Only One-Third Of Obamacare Exchange Sign-Ups Were From The Previously Uninsured

Today is March 31, 2014: in theory, the last day you can sign up for coverage

Under the subsidized Obamacare insurance exchanges. If you’ve been a regular reader of this space, you know that the numbers routinely paraded by the Obama administration regarding Obamacare website sign-ups don’t tell us much about the actual number of uninsured individuals who have gained coverage. A new study from the RAND Corporation indicates that only one-third of exchange sign-ups were previously uninsured.

The RAND study hasn’t yet been published, but its contents were made available to Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times. RAND also estimates that 9 million individuals have purchased health plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges, but that “the vast majority of these people were previously insured.”

The RAND report appears to corroborate the work of other surveys. Earlier this month, McKinsey reportedthat 27 percent of those signing up for coverage on the individual market were previously uninsured.

Around 1/4 of exchange enrollees were previously uninsured

One important finding of the McKinsey survey was that the proportion of those who had formally enrolled in coverage, by paying their first month’s premium, was considerably lower among the previously uninsured, relative to the previously insured. 86 percent of those who were previously insured who had “selected a marketplace plan” on the exchanges had paid, whereas only 53 percent of the previously uninsured had.

McK-enroll-Feb-2.png

If you apply that math to the RAND figures, you get this: of the people who have paid their first month’s premium on the Obamacare exchanges, and are thereby enrolled in coverage, 76 percent were previously insured, and 24 percent were previously uninsured.

Two caveats. First, we know little about RAND’s survey methodology at this time; we’ll have to see the actual study to see the details of what they did. Second, we don’t know how many previously uninsured people signed up for off-exchange coverage, above and beyond the normal rate of churn that this market would traditionally see.

CBO predicted nearly all exchange enrollees would be previously uninsured

What’s important to remember is that this is not how Obamacare was supposed to work. The Congressional Budget Office, in its original estimates, predicted that the vast majority of the people eligible for subsidies on the exchanges would be previously uninsured individuals.

Instead, the vast majority are previously insured people, many of whom are getting a better deal on the exchanges because they either qualify for subsidies, or because they’re older individuals who benefit from the law’s steep rate hikes on the young.

This is a problem that may get worse over time, as the cost of plans continues to go up. In the McKinsey survey, of those who had decided not to sign up for Obamacare, the most common reason was the “affordability” of the offered plans. Indications from insurers like Aetna and WellPoint is that the premiums on the exchange will go up substantially next year.

The bottom line is this: there are a lot of numbers flying around out there about how many people are benefiting from Obamacare. A big part of the reason is political; advocates of the law want to claim that so many millions of people are dependent on the law for coverage, that it will be difficult to repeal.

I agree with them that the law will be difficult to repeal, but that’s no excuse for whitewashing the real problems with affordability and access in the Obamacare exchanges.

Exactly! AS WFW pointed out in post #137 but was glanced over and ignored by the main ACA cheerleader on the board Ac, the LATimes was the only paper that saw the Rand report and they hide this but in a small paragraph in the article WFW pointed out! But (oh look at our fake numbers says the cheerleader) okay rebut this then:

The unpublished RAND study – only the Los Angeles Times has seen it – found that just 23 per cent of new enrollees had no insurance before signing up.

And of those newly insured Americans, just 53 per cent have paid their first month's premiums. If those numbers hold, the actual net gain of paid policies among Americans who lacked medical insurance in the pre-Obamacare days would be just 858,298.

http://www.dailymail...signing-up.html

Wheels.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! AS WFW pointed out in post #137 but was glanced over and ignored by the main ACA cheerleader on the board Ac, the LATimes was the only paper that saw the Rand report and they hide this but in a small paragraph in the article WFW pointed out! But (oh look at our fake numbers says the cheerleader) okay rebut this then:

The unpublished RAND study – only the Los Angeles Times has seen it – found that just 23 per cent of new enrollees had no insurance before signing up.

And of those newly insured Americans, just 53 per cent have paid their first month's premiums. If those numbers hold, the actual net gain of paid policies among Americans who lacked medical insurance in the pre-Obamacare days would be just 858,298.

http://www.dailymail...signing-up.html

If only the LA Times has seen it, then how does DailyMail in the UK know about it? Because the LA Times article we both linked said the following:

• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, here is the full LA Times article for those who want the broader picture, not the cherry-picked nonsense from hyper-partisan websites. Also, see the bolded text for a debunking of a common (and false) argument from the right:

WASHINGTON — President Obama's healthcare law, despite a rocky rollout and determined opposition from critics, already has spurred the largest expansion in health coverage in America in half a century, national surveys and enrollment data show.

As the law's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. Some have done so through marketplaces created by the law, some through other private insurance and others through Medicaid, which has expanded under the law in about half the states.

The tally draws from a review of state and federal enrollment reports, surveys and interviews with insurance executives and government officials nationwide.

The Affordable Care Act still faces major challenges, particularly the risk of premium hikes next year that could drive away newly insured customers. But the increased coverage so far amounts to substantial progress toward one of the law's principal goals and is the most significant expansion since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

The millions of newly insured also create a politically important constituency that may complicate any future Republican repeal efforts.

Precise figures on national health coverage will not be available for months. But available data indicate:

• At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.

• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.

• At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs, according to Rand's unpublished survey data, which were shared with The Times. That tracks with estimates from Avalere Health, a consulting firm that is closely following the law's implementation.

• An additional 3 million young adults have gained coverage in recent years through a provision of the law that enables dependent children to remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26, according to national health insurance surveys from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• About 9 million people have bought health plans directly from insurers, instead of using the marketplaces, Rand found. The vast majority of these people were previously insured.

• Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates.

Republican critics of the law have suggested that the cancellations last fall have led to a net reduction in coverage.

That is not supported by survey data or insurance companies, many of which report they have retained the vast majority of their 2013 customers by renewing old policies, which is permitted in about half the states, or by moving customers to new plans.

"We are talking about a very small fraction of the country" who lost coverage, said Katherine Carman, a Rand economist who is overseeing the survey.

Rand has been polling 3,300 Americans monthly about their insurance choices since last fall. Researchers found that the share of adults ages 18 to 64 without health insurance has declined from 20.9% last fall to 16.6% as of March 22.

The decrease parallels a similar drop recorded by Gallup, which found in its national polling that the uninsured rate among adults had declined from 18% in the final quarter of last year to 15.9% through the first two months of 2014. Gallup's overall uninsured rate is lower than Rand's because it includes seniors on Medicare.

Gallup Editor in Chief Frank Newport said that March polling, which has not been released yet, indicates the uninsured rate has declined further.

"While it is important to be cautious, the logical conclusion is that the law is having an effect," he said.

Although estimates vary, about 45 million to 48 million people are believed to have been uninsured before the marketplaces opened last year.

http://www.latimes.c...y#ixzz2xk1MgLuS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even according to Acworth's biased article, more than half of the new enrollees are medicaid with millions more receiving subsidees. Just how big of an entitlement has this become?

Where are all the young, healthy, middle-class people who have to pay more to make this affordable?

Edited by Doozer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, here is the full LA Times article for those who want the broader picture, not the cherry-picked nonsense from hyper-partisan websites.

Sorry Acworth you lost me here trying to paint the LA times as, some Bi partisan news agency.... shame on you dude.

I'm sure you loved this piece by them....

Obamacare numbers coming in huge: Here's a guide to GOP excuse-making

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-numbers-20140331,0,4488747.story#ixzz2xk3r1V00

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Acworth, more than half of the new enrollees are medicaid with millions more receiving subsidees. Just how big of an entitlement has this become?

Where are all the young, healthy, middle-class people who have to pay more to make this affordable?

Just wait man, the most transparent White House administration we've ever experienced will be forth coming with the details....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Acworth you lost me here trying to paint the LA times as, some Bi partisan news agency.... shame on you dude.

I'm sure you loved this piece by them....

Obamacare numbers coming in huge: Here's a guide to GOP excuse-making

http://www.latimes.c...y#ixzz2xk3r1V00

I didn't say they were nonpartisan. I said that they were not hyper-partisan like the DailyMail in the UK. That place is pretty far out. Most people consider the LA Times to be a credible newspaper, if biased to the left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say they were nonpartisan. I said that they were not hyper-partisan like the DailyMail in the UK. That place is pretty far out. Most people consider the LA Times to be a credible newspaper, if biased to the left.

I bet you say the same thing about MSNBC and CBS

Edited by Doozer
Link to post
Share on other sites

47 million STILL UNINSURED as per CBO, I guess the Admin will have to step up their advertising..... hijack 1/6 of the economy, destroy the HC system , not fix it for a net gain of a million people in their 7 mil "claimed" signups. Big Govt and Libs spinning the no's there's nothing they cant fk up and the left wing hacks are dancing in the streets claiming some kind of victory ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

47 million STILL UNINSURED as per CBO, I guess the Admin will have to step up their advertising..... hijack 1/6 of the economy, destroy the HC system , not fix it for a net gain of a million people in their 7 mil "claimed" signups. Big Govt and Libs spinning the no's there's nothing they cant fk up and the left wing hacks are dancing in the streets claiming some kind of victory ?

They've already claimed victory. This is officially too big to repeal.

Next comes the part about blaming Republicans for obstructing 47million from signing up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Acworth you lost me here trying to paint the LA times as, some Bi partisan news agency.... shame on you dude.

I'm sure you loved this piece by them....

Obamacare numbers coming in huge: Here's a guide to GOP excuse-making

http://www.latimes.c...y#ixzz2xk3r1V00

People write these columns when one side wins and one side loses. To wit, here is an article from Politico today:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/obamacare-enrollment-105268.html?hp=f2

Back in the fall, conservatives seized on the flubbed Obamacare rollout as proof that President Barack Obama’s brand of liberalism doesn’t work.

Now, the law’s opponents aren’t about to say that critique was wrong — but they’ve lost the best evidence they had.

On Tuesday, Obamacare sign-ups passed 7 million, six months after the launch of a federal website that could barely sign up anybody. There are still a lot of questions about how solid that figure is, but the idea that the law could even come close to the original goal after such a disastrous start would have been laughable even a few weeks ago.

It was also a wake-up call for Republicans and conservatives, and even the occasional liberal, who pushed the argument that the failed website challenges the idea at the heart of Obama’s agenda — that government can still solve big social problems.

That’s left the critics questioning the early numbers or changing the subject. It’s a reminder that the attacks on the website were more than complaints about technology, but a proxy for a much deeper argument about what government should do and what it can’t do.

Take conservative writer Charles Krauthammer.

In November, Krauthammer wrote that Obamacare was a symbol of Obama’s “new, more ambitious, social-democratic brand of American liberalism” and that its failure “would catastrophically undermine their ideology of ever-expansive central government providing cradle-to-grave care for an ever-grateful citizenry.”

Now, Krauthammer says the question is different. It’s about how real the numbers are, he says, after accounting for people who won’t pay their premiums and people who are just replacing old insurance with new insurance.

“At the very beginning, when they weren’t even able to sign anybody up, it seemed like the airplane couldn’t even get off the ground,” Krauthammer said in an interview. “Now we’ll see whether it can actually fly.”

Critics don’t think the 7 million figure will hold up, once you take out the people who haven’t paid their premiums and the ones who weren’t uninsured. And most say the Affordable Care Act is causing so many other problems — especially for people who were displaced from their previous insurance, have higher premiums than they used to pay, or face reduced work hours — that it’s a long way from being vindicated.

There’s also a subtle distancing that’s going on, as some conservatives argue that it was never all about the website anyway.

In October, Yuval Levin sounded this warning in National Review: “The technical failures of the exchange websites raise grave alarms about the technocratic vision at the core of Obamacare. That technocratic vision begins from the notion that we already possess the knowledge it takes to run an efficient health-financing system and all that remains is to apply that knowledge from the center, with the government defining the insurance product strictly and then compelling insurers to sell it, compelling consumers to buy it, managing the countless assorted variables and pressures involved, and calling what results a market.”

On Tuesday, Levin said the important question is not the website, but whether it “makes sense to centralize the economics of health care in this way” — so the new enrollment numbers are “not the answer to that question.”

“If the question was, ‘Can the government run a website?’ it might have seemed in November like the answer was, ‘No.’ And they’ve certainly recovered from that,” said Levin. “The question at the heart of the debate was never, ‘Can the government run a website?’ The question is whether its approach to health economics is going to be viable.”

Republicans did their best to insist the new numbers weren’t really important.

“That misses the whole issue,” Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said of the news of the enrollment surge. “You can play the numbers game, which is what they’re playing, but the devil is in the details, and the details are not good.”

And House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who on the same day released a budget plan that would repeal the law, wasn’t fazed by the enrollment news.

“I think Obamacare is a slow-rolling fiasco. I think it’s a Pyrrhic victory,” the Wisconsin lawmaker said during a conference call with reportersTuesday, at the same time that Obama was giving his victory speech in the Rose Garden.

But it was so much easier when they could just say the federal government can’t tie its own shoelaces. Now, they have to acknowledge that the government fixed the problem — and enrollment came roaring back.

Obama certainly sounded like he felt vindicated on Tuesday. He teased the media about its constant reporting of every website stumble and declared that the sign-up surge proved that the law’s goal of expanded coverage is no pipe dream.

“Today should remind us that the goal we set for ourselves — that no American should go without the health care that they need … the idea that everybody in this country can get decent health care, that goal is achievable,” Obama said. “We are on our way.”

But even liberal domestic policy experts were more cautious about how much the comeback really proves.

“The ACA has dodged another bullet. But there’s still a lot we don’t know — about the age/health mix of enrollees and the number who were previously insured, among other things,” said William Galston of the Brookings Institution, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. “Most important, we don’t know whether large price increases are under way for October. This is the AFFORDABLE Care Act, after all.”

And the critics weren’t all ready to give the Obama administration gold stars. Lanhee Chen, Mitt Romney’s former policy director, said there are plenty of other areas in which the Obama administration’s competence can still be questioned — especially in not coming up with ways to track important information that shouldn’t be hard to track, like who was actually uninsured and who has paid their premiums.

“Why don’t we know more about who’s paid the first premium? Why are we having to read the tea leaves?” said Chen. “It speaks less to the ability of government to do big things and more to the competence with which this project was carried out.”

Still, Chen said it was time for Republicans to start thinking about whether there are parts of Obamacare that they can “keep in place and make better in terms of conservative health care reform” — like the health insurance exchanges and the future tax on generous health insurance plans, which he said could open the door to conservative goals like giving people their own tax break for health coverage.

“There are things in the law that create opportunities for conservatives, and they need to start embracing them,” said Chen.

That doesn’t seem to be the plan for most Republicans, though.

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio called again for the law’s repeal on Monday, the last day of enrollment, and Ryan’s budget is still built around the elimination of the law. He declared that “you’ll see lots of comprehensive alternative plans” from the GOP to replace the law, even though House Republicans haven’t been able to agree on one yet.

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters that former Sen. Scott Brown, the vocal Obamacare opponent who’s trying to return to the Senate and was at the weekly Republican lunch Tuesday, was “an appropriate candidate in a year in which Obamacare is likely to be the biggest issue in the fall” — as if the enrollment news had never happened.

To most Republicans, that’s the only way to move ahead — to keep talking about the law’s other problems and assure their supporters that they’ll never stop fighting the law.

“Despite the White House ‘victory lap,’ this law continues to harm the American people,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement after Obama’s speech. “Every promise the President made has been broken: health care costs are rising, not falling. Americans are losing the doctors and plans that they like — especially seniors suffering under President Obama’s Medicare cuts. Small businesses are afraid to hire new workers, hobbling our economic growth. That’s why we must replace this fundamentally-flawed law with patient-centered solutions that will actually lower health care costs and help create jobs.”

So far, though, they’re not saying what they’d do about the millions of Americans — whatever the actual number has turned out to be — who have already signed up for Obamacare coverage.

When asked by reporters, Sen. Ron Johnson didn’t answer directly, arguing that “it’s actually the Obama administration that keeps undermining the Affordable Care Act” through all of the delays it has granted on its own. And the Wisconsin Republican continued to talk about narrower, less disruptive alternatives as if the Obamacare train was still sitting in the station.

“Surely we can fashion a way to help the people who are falling through the cracks without doing all the damage that’s being done to others,” Johnson said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republicans have a great opportunity to capitalize on the failures of this law and are too stupid to take advantage of it.

It's not an issue of them being too stupid. They know exactly what to do, they just don't have the balls to do it. The Republican Party leaders are too worried about being liked by the media and such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MSNBC is the leftwing equivalent of FOX News - seriously biased and not really nuanced in the bias. CBS is pretty mainstream comparatively.

The liberals always carp and moan about this bias with Fox News. I guess to them presenting views from both the left and right wing perspective is a bias.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is really not much sense arguing about this law, its a pig and the Admin knows its a pig. Its a giant cluster fk and the only way to fix it is single payer which is the final step if they can keep the people dumb and the MSM protects the Admin long enough. Wont be so easy if they lose the Senate.....you can only hope. As one who has dealt with single payer for years BELIEVE ME you do not want it it .

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen so far, Dems are getting raked over the coals in political ads over Obamacare. Most of them want to stay as far as away as possible especially if they are up for election this year.

of course the Dems want to distance themselves from the ACA. That's not the point. Maddow reported this speech as though it was the single greatest accomplishment in American history. I seriously think she needed to change her underwear half way through her show. She actually said that the goofy look on Biden's face was proof that the ACA is a smashing success.

Not one word about how more people are uninsured now than there was before this law. Not one word about how Democrats running for reelection are distancing themselves from this. She's a mindless hack in the true sense of the word. She makes Hannity look like an open minded independent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...