People don't want Obamacare

[djohn2oo8]

According to Chris and Crew
933466794643337217

[rmt]

According to Chris and Crew
933466794643337217

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
933466794643337217

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/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2017-Fact-Sheet-items/2017-11-22.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/article/Record-low-6-8-of-Californians-are-uninsured-12371967.php#nws=mcnewsletterOf course, you will say ACA in CA is a horrible disaster, ignoring that poor people are getting humanitarian health care, which is antithetical to Ayn Rand social/economic Darwinism which says health care is a privilege that must be earned like any other consumer shit, and moochers/takers should suffer and die.

[UZER]

According to Chris and Crew
933466794643337217

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/article/Record-low-6-8-of-Californians-are-uninsured-12371967.php#nws=mcnewsletterOf course, you will say ACA in CA is a horrible disaster, ignoring that poor people are getting humanitarian health care, which is antithetical to Ayn Rand social/economic Darwinism which says health care is a privilege that must be earned like any other consumer shit, 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/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2017-Fact-Sheet-items/2017-11-22.html

2,277,079 cumulative week three 2017

2016, week three+four
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2016-Fact-sheets-items/2016-11-30.html

2,137,717 cumulative, 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/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2017-Fact-Sheet-items/2017-11-22.html

2,277,079 cumulative week three 2017

2016, week three+four
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2016-Fact-sheets-items/2016-11-30.html

2,137,717 cumulative, week four 2016

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

:wow

[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/S0196-0644(17)30319-0/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/article/20170913/NEWS/170919951



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/10/tom-price/hhs-chief-tom-price-correct-er-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/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2017-Fact-Sheet-items/2017-11-22.html

2,277,079 cumulative week three 2017

2016, week three+four
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2016-Fact-sheets-items/2016-11-30.html

2,137,717 cumulative, 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 fuck 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/20171123/UCLA-study-ACA-appears-to-have-encouraged-more-people-to-use-preventive-care-for-heart-health.aspx

[mavsfan1000]

Fuck Obamacare. Anything>Obamacare.

[AaronY]

Fuck Obamacare. Anything>Obamacare.
What do you think of the Affordable Care Act?

[rmt]

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

How many days is your enrollment period, Th'Pusher? Dh had from Nov. 1 until Nov. 17 to sign up. My enrollment for next year hasn't started yet so it will be at most 38 days [7 (left in Nov) + 31 (in Dec)]. Why does anyone need 92 days - over 1/4 of the year in which to enroll?

[Th'Pusher]

How many days is your enrollment period, Th'Pusher? Dh had from Nov. 1 until Nov. 17 to sign up. My enrollment for next year hasn't started yet so it will be at most 38 days [7 (left in Nov) + 31 (in Dec)]. Why does anyone need 92 days - over 1/4 of the year in which to enroll?

Do you think the Trump administration is actively working to sabotage the ACA?

[rmt]

Do you think the Trump administration is actively working to sabotage the ACA?

Did he (and most of the republicans) campaign (and was voted in) on repealing and replacing Obamacare? Why should you be surprised when he tries to do what he said he would do? Obamacare is what brought me down here in the first place - what made me become politically active. If I was into swearing, I'd be doing the same thing as mavsfan.

[rmt]

It's probably the most ill-conceived piece of junk ever passed - the most insidious (Feds paying 100% to get states hooked on it - and how are these states gonna afford even their eventual 10%) pos. Men's policies with maternity, mammogram, birth control coverage - beyond ridiculous. Do you need to hear more about what I really feel about Obamacare?

[Th'Pusher]

Did he (and most of the republicans) campaign (and was voted in) on repealing and replacing Obamacare? Why should you be surprised when he tries to do what he said he would do? Obamacare is what brought me down here in the first place - what made me become politically active. If I was into swearing, I'd be doing the same thing as mavsfan.

He said he would repeal and replace the ACA. His attempts have failed. It’s the law of the land and it’s his job to ensure that the law is executed. You threw a fit when Obama selectively enforced the law. Are you a hypocrite rmt?

[Th'Pusher]

It's probably the most ill-conceived piece of junk ever passed - the most insidious (Feds paying 100% to get states hooked on it - and how are these states gonna afford even their eventual 10%) pos. Men's policies with maternity, mammogram, birth control coverage - beyond ridiculous. Do you need to hear more about what I really feel about Obamacare?

I know you hate the law. But it’s the law and Trump failed to convince congress to repeal it. I don’t know why you continue to make excuses for the impotent fool.

[baseline bum]

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

Can't believe anything that comes out of that fat fuck's mouth tbh

[rmt]

He said he would repeal and replace the ACA. His attempts have failed. It’s the law of the land and it’s his job to ensure that the law is executed. You threw a fit when Obama selectively enforced the law. Are you a hypocrite rmt?

Please tell me where in this law of land that it says the enrollment period must be 3 months long. Do you think that is a reasonable time period? Do you know ANY company or organization that has an enrollment period of 3 months? Do you even know ANY that has an enrollment period of 45 days?

So when there is a bad law (of course, this is a matter of opinion), it must never be changed or repealed?

[rmt]

Why not have the enrollment period 6 months? Or better yet, all year round - that way, whenever one gets sick or injured, one can sign up. Or just sign up before the 15th of the current month and you're covered as of the 1st of the next month.

[rmt]

I know you hate the law. But it’s the law and Trump failed to convince congress to repeal it. I don’t know why you continue to make excuses for the impotent fool.

I am making no excuses for Trump regarding Obamacare - I see it as him trying his best to fulfill a campaign promise. You see him as lessening the enrollment period - I see it as putting it at a much more reasonable period but still way more than most companies/organizations. I see Obama's 3 month enrollment as excessive (who needs 3 months to make up their mind about a health plan?) - you know what you see it as and maybe you'll share whether you think 3 month's enrollment is reasonable/too short and why.

[boutons_deux]

"trying his best" :lol what a strange phrase to a 100% bad faith, corrupt, lying asshole, esp when his entire life and campaign is a lie, a fraud, his is campaign LIES known at the time to be totally unachievable (eg "repeal on day one" with "better and cheaper") and/or implemented exactly 180 out, eg, hiring Goldman Sacks crooks and other swamp monsters.

[Th'Pusher]

Please tell me where in this law of land that it says the enrollment period must be 3 months long. Do you think that is a reasonable time period? Do you know ANY company or organization that has an enrollment period of 3 months? Do you even know ANY that has an enrollment period of 45 days?

So when there is a bad law (of course, this is a matter of opinion), it must never be changed or repealed?


Why not have the enrollment period 6 months? Or better yet, all year round - that way, whenever one gets sick or injured, one can sign up. Or just sign up before the 15th of the current month and you're covered as of the 1st of the next month.


I am making no excuses for Trump regarding Obamacare - I see it as him trying his best to fulfill a campaign promise. You see him as lessening the enrollment period - I see it as putting it at a much more reasonable period but still way more than most companies/organizations. I see Obama's 3 month enrollment as excessive (who needs 3 months to make up their mind about a health plan?) - you know what you see it as and maybe you'll share whether you think 3 month's enrollment is reasonable/too short and why.

How is shortening the enrollment period fulfilling a campaign promise? He campaigned on repealing and replacing the law. He failed to do that. So you're ok with the chief executive sabotaging the law because he's too fucking incompetent to convince a republican majority congress to repeal the law? And we're not even talking about 60 votes to get real legislation passed. That moron couldn't get enough support in his own party to get 50 votes and repeal the ACA under bullshit reconciliation. He's a completely ineffective leader and people like you just continue to make excuses for him.

[RandomGuy]

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/S0196-0644(17)30319-0/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/article/20170913/NEWS/170919951

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/10/tom-price/hhs-chief-tom-price-correct-er-use-obamacare/

Doesn't really answer the question. In the case of Medicaid, any increase in visits would not affect others' premiums, because the hospital would not need to eat the costs, then charge others more.

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

What would an "efficient" transfer of wealth be in that case? Is the term "efficient" even relevant or defined?

[RandomGuy]

It's probably the most ill-conceived piece of junk ever passed - the most insidious (Feds paying 100% to get states hooked on it - and how are these states gonna afford even their eventual 10%) pos. Men's policies with maternity, mammogram, birth control coverage - beyond ridiculous. Do you need to hear more about what I really feel about Obamacare?

It is an ok law. When fully implemented, it does what it is supposed to do. The "men's policies" schtick is stupid, meaningless propaganda. A uniform insurance policy between the sexes means you don't have to differentiate forms. That's pretty much it.

The expected premium impact from such a thing is zero. If the actual dollar effect is zero, who cares?

It is the closest thing to a free-market solution that we are going to get, which is doubly ironic.

For the people who think they believe in the free market, it is the closest thing to a solution they like that they are likely to have in their lifetime.

The alternative is downright socialist. I think it is coming.

[boutons_deux]

ACA was a fantastic law, considering it lies on top of the US health racket, had 100+ weakening/compromising amendments attached, and had to make sure BigPharma, BigInsurance got paid in any case, and health care costs and cost increases were not directly limited.

But poor people got health care, and poorer people got into Medicaid and health care.

It's very rare for USA, esp oligarchy's lap dog called USA, to do anything humanitarian for its own citizens. eg, oligarchy has screwed PR and letting it rot right now, with 100s if not 1000s of hurricane-related deaths to come. They're brown, don't speak English, and are Catholic, iow, white male Protestant supremacists say "let 'em rot".

[monosylab1k]

It's probably the most ill-conceived piece of junk ever passed - the most insidious (Feds paying 100% to get states hooked on it - and how are these states gonna afford even their eventual 10%) pos. Men's policies with maternity, mammogram, birth control coverage - beyond ridiculous. Do you need to hear more about what I really feel about Obamacare?

So you also believe women shouldn’t have to pay for boner pills, right?

[Chris]

^whataboutism strikes again