People don't want Obamacare

[djohn2oo8]

According to Chris and Crew

[rmt]

According to Chris and Crew

2,277,079 / 21 days = 108,432 people per day

108,432 x 45 days in enrollment period = 4,879,455 people

4,879,455 <<<<<<<<<< 12,216,003 who signed up during 2017 enrollment period.

And that's if people continue to sign up at the same rate at which they signed up in the first 3 weeks. My guess is that there will be a rush at the deadline but that the majority of people who want to sign up (the very sick) have already done so in the beginning. My questions (just like the numbers on the tax plan for a median income in the US) are: why do people not check the math themselves, why do they believe all the BS and hype out there and why do they continue to spread that BS all over the internet when it is so easy to check?

[Spurtacular]

According to Chris and Crew

Prey.

[boutons_deux]

No mention from ACA-hater rmt about how Repugs have and are sabotaging ACA, because rmt wants people to stay diseased, and die, for lack of health care.

[rmt]

I checked the CMS site and the 2,277,079 is for Nov. 1 through 18 so:

2,277,079 / 18 days = 126,504

126,504 x 45 days = 5,692,680 which is still a lot less than 12,216,003 from the previous year.

Enrollment is slowing down: 798,829 / 7 days = 114,118 people per day (from Nov. 12 - 18) as opposed to the 134,386 average daily from the first 11 days of Nov. (2,277,079 - 798,829 = 1,478,250 1,478,250 / 11 = 134,386)

Moral of the story: Use the numbers from the original source

https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaRe...017-11-22.html

[rmt]

No mention from ACA-hater rmt about how Repugs have and are sabotaging ACA, because rmt wants people to stay diseased, and die, for lack of health care.

Seems to me that if it were so great, people would be rushing out to get it especially since the majority of them get huge subsidies. IF enrollment continues at the same pace (doubtful), about 5,692,680 will enroll - a huge drop from last year. This ACA is a huge INEFFICIENT redistribution of wealth - taking from people like sickdsm to pay for others. Small businesses (the so-called life blood of this country) are struggling with these over-priced policies loaded with coverage that people don't need while the big companies that you rail on aren't affected as much because they can self-insure.

[boutons_deux]

Where ACA is done in good faith, ACA works.

A record low 6.8% of Californians lack health insurance, figures show

http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/...s=mcnewsletter

Of course, you will say ACA in CA is a horrible disaster, ignoring that poor people are getting humanitarian health care, which is an hetical to Ayn Rand social/economic Darwinism which says health care is a privilege that must be earned like any other consumer , and moochers/takers should suffer and die.

[UZER]

According to Chris and Crew

Isn't the grace period over? Don't you get penalized, I mean taxed, for not having it if you don't have other coverage?

Of course people are going to be signing up.

[rmt]

Where ACA is done in good faith, ACA works.

A record low 6.8% of Californians lack health insurance, figures show

http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/...s=mcnewsletter

Of course, you will say ACA in CA is a horrible disaster, ignoring that poor people are getting humanitarian health care, which is an hetical to Ayn Rand social/economic Darwinism which says health care is a privilege that must be earned like any other consumer , and moochers/takers should suffer and die.

How can you say it works? The Feds have been paying 100% for Medicaid expansion through the end of 2016. Only this year are the states starting to pay (and only I believe 5% this year - to a max of 10% in 2020?) that's opposed to the 50-50? split that apply to the REGULAR Medicaid beneficiaries (you know, the ones who truly cannot fend for themselves - the disabled, children, etc).

[RandomGuy]

2,277,079 / 21 days = 108,432 people per day

108,432 x 45 days in enrollment period = 4,879,455 people

4,879,455 <<<<<<<<<< 12,216,003 who signed up during 2017 enrollment period.

And that's if people continue to sign up at the same rate at which they signed up in the first 3 weeks. My guess is that there will be a rush at the deadline but that the majority of people who want to sign up (the very sick) have already done so in the beginning. My questions (just like the numbers on the tax plan for a median income in the US) are: why do people not check the math themselves, why do they believe all the BS and hype out there and why do they continue to spread that BS all over the internet when it is so easy to check?

Current year roughly on par with last year, but this year has more people. They changed the timing, so there is no full comparability.

2017, week three:
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaRe...017-11-22.html

2,277,079 ulative week three 2017

2016, week three+four
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaRe...016-11-30.html

2,137,717 ulative, week four 2016

Enrollment is up, since 3rd week total has exceeded 4th week total from last year.

[RandomGuy]

How can you say it works? The Feds have been paying 100% for Medicaid expansion through the end of 2016. Only this year are the states starting to pay (and only I believe 5% this year - to a max of 10% in 2020?) that's opposed to the 50-50? split that apply to the REGULAR Medicaid beneficiaries (you know, the ones who truly cannot fend for themselves - the disabled, children, etc).

I can say it works if people have more access to health care, and are healthier.

Isn't that the point?

[RandomGuy]

Seems to me that if it were so great, people would be rushing out to get it especially since the majority of them get huge subsidies. IF enrollment continues at the same pace (doubtful), about 5,692,680 will enroll - a huge drop from last year. This ACA is a huge INEFFICIENT redistribution of wealth - taking from people like sickdsm to pay for others. Small businesses (the so-called life blood of this country) are struggling with these over-priced policies loaded with coverage that people don't need while the big companies that you rail on aren't affected as much because they can self-insure.

Would you say the transfer of wealth is more efficient than paying increased premiums when the uninsured visit the ER?

What would an "efficient" transfer of wealth be in that case?

[dabom]

Current year roughly on par with last year, but this year has more people. They changed the timing, so there is no full comparability.

2017, week three:
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaRe...017-11-22.html

2,277,079 ulative week three 2017

2016, week three+four
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaRe...016-11-30.html

2,137,717 ulative, week four 2016

Enrollment is up, since 3rd week total has exceeded 4th week total from last year.

[boutons_deux]

2016 enrollments were down (no insurance) because Trash/Repugs were to repeal ACA on "day one". 21 Jan 2017

[rmt]

Would you say the transfer of wealth is more efficient than paying increased premiums when the uninsured visit the ER?

What would an "efficient" transfer of wealth be in that case?

Results
We found that total ED use per 1,000 population increased by 2.5 visits more in Medicaid expansion states than in nonexpansion states after 2014 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 3.9). Among the visit types that could be measured, increases in ED visits were largest for injury-related visits and for states with the largest changes in Medicaid enrollment. Compared with nonexpansion states, in expansion states the share of ED visits covered by Medicaid increased 8.8 percentage points (95% CI 5.0 to 12.6), whereas the uninsured share decreased by 5.3 percentage points (95% CI –1.7 to –8.9).

Conclusion
The ACA’s Medicaid expansion has resulted in changes in payer mix. Contrary to other studies of the ACA’s effect on ED visits, our study found that the expansion also increased use of the ED, consistent with polls of emergency physicians.

http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S...319-0/fulltext



Emergency room visits hit all-time high during ACA implementation

Patient emergency room visits rose to a record high of 141.4 million in 2014, the same year the Affordable Care Act's insurance expansion went into effect, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The results contradict policy experts' assertions that unnecessary ER use would decline as more people gained access to health insurance under the ACA. The hope was that newly insured individuals would rely less on the ER because they could seek out preventive services and primary care, but the CDC data suggests that hadn't occurred yet in 2014.

For the first time, Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries accounted for the bulk of ER visits at 34.9%. This aligns with the Medicaid coverage gains that began in 2014 and insured about 14.5 million people. Trailing behind at 34.6% were privately insured individuals and Medicare beneficiaries at 17.5%. Only 11.8% of ER visits were attributed to uninsured individuals.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/arti...NEWS/170919951



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...use-obamacare/

[rmt]

Current year roughly on par with last year, but this year has more people. They changed the timing, so there is no full comparability.

2017, week three:
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaRe...017-11-22.html

2,277,079 ulative week three 2017

2016, week three+four
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaRe...016-11-30.html

2,137,717 ulative, week four 2016

Enrollment is up, since 3rd week total has exceeded 4th week total from last year.

I updated my calculations using the CMS website numbers in a previous post - my bad for using the number of days off a tweet instead of the original source. But I believe my last calculations from 2 hours ago are correct.

Why are you stuck on week by week comparison? Isn't it the total enrollment that's important? 2018 enrollment period is 45 days. 2017 enrollment period was 92 days. They enrolled 2,277,079 in 18 days - so to just match last year's enrollment, 9,938,924 people will have to enroll in 27 days - that's not gonna happen.

[Th'Pusher]

I updated my calculations using the CMS website numbers in a previous post - my bad for using the number of days off a tweet instead of the original source. But I believe my last calculations from 2 hours ago are correct.

Why are you stuck on week by week comparison? Isn't it the total enrollment that's important? 2018 enrollment period is 45 days. 2017 enrollment period was 92 days. They enrolled 2,277,079 in 18 days - so to just match last year's enrollment, 9,938,924 people will have to enroll in 27 days - that's not gonna happen.

Why were the number of days in the enrollment period reduced?

[boutons_deux]

Why were the number of days in the enrollment period reduced?

FundS for advertising and navigators cut severely

[sickdsm]

I signed up two years ago. I may sign up again. It has no way of showing that it's a winning plan.

[boutons_deux]

How can you say it works? The Feds have been paying 100% for Medicaid expansion through the end of 2016.

the health and lives of Americans are in play, and all you rightwingnutjob assholes think of is money, while ignoring the rip-off costs of health care, the closed guild of greedy doctors, and ignoring, even approving, the $Ts in tax expenditures for the oligarchy.

[AaronY]

Isn't the grace period over? Don't you get penalized, I mean taxed, for not having it if you don't have other coverage?

Of course people are going to be signing up.

Didn't Trump and the government say that they aren't enforcing the penalty last year? Maybe people don't know that

[boutons_deux]

Didn't Trump and the government say that they aren't enforcing the penalty last year? Maybe people don't know that

yep, told IRS to off and break the law.

[boutons_deux]

UCLA study: ACA appears to have encouraged more people to use preventive care for heart health

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...rt-health.aspx

[mavsfan1000]

Obamacare. Anything>Obamacare.

[AaronY]

Obamacare. Anything>Obamacare.

What do you think of the Affordable Care Act?