Reply With Quote
Link?
Brietbart
TSA is upset that Obamacare signed up 7m users
Actually you are wrong, again. The article on Yahoo was an article with a positive spin on Obamacare, definitely not rightwing.
Link?
Brietbart
TSA is upset that Obamacare signed up 7m users
Link?
Brietbart
TSA is upset that Obamacare signed up 7m usershttp://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-webs...9--sector.html
You asked for a link to where I found the comment.
"But the solid enrollment in the first year has built a foundation that for now appears robust enough to support more growth next year.
In several states, including Rhode Island, Connecticut, Kentucky, Iowa and South Dakota, more insurers are looking to join state marketplaces when second-year enrollment begins this fall, according to marketplace and insurance industry officials.
And after initial resistance, a growing number of states with GOP governors or legislatures are looking to expand coverage further.
New Hampshire's Legislature just voted to expand its Medicaid program. Utah, Indiana and Pennsylvania are looking for ways to do the same."
"The latest Associated Press poll reveals that his disapproval rating has now hit an all-time high of 59%."
Presidents, (sheeple think they are all-powerful, divine-right dictators) get praised or slandered MAINLY with the state of the economy. (except right-winger and Repugs who slander all things Dem, and esp Dem n!gg@s)
The Repugs austerity budgets, sequestration, etc, and refusal to implement any stimulus or jobs programs, have greatly slowed the recovery from the (pre-Obama) Banksters Great Depression, financial depression already known to be longer than other types, as the Repugs have calculated they would do since Jan 2009.
Sorry. There was a misunderstanding as I asked for links plural (to the comment and preceding article). Now, in the future, if you would just provide links to the news sources that give you the confirmation bias needed to fuel your emotions this could all be avoided. Thanks in advance, emo.
No problem.
Says the guy constantly using emoticons.Thanks in advance, emo.
ISSA SUBPOENAS SEVEN MILLION AMERICANS WHO SIGNED UP FOR OBAMACARE
Accusing them of involvement in “a widespread conspiracy to save President Obama’s failed health-care program,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) today subpoenaed the approximately seven million Americans who have signed up for Obamacare so far.
Arguing that the impressive enrollment numbers “don’t pass the smell test,” the House Oversight Committee chairman told reporters, “Any rational person would come to the same conclusion that I have: namely, that this is a well-orchestrated conspiracy of seven million people trying to make Obamacare look good.”
The California Republican said that the seven million co-conspirators targeted by his subpoenas would be required to travel to Washington to testify before his committee or risk being found in contempt of Congress.
“If you signed up for Obamacare, you have a lot of explaining to do,” he said.
In announcing the subpoenas, Rep. Issa indicated that his committee could begin grilling the seven million Obamacare enrollees as early as next week. “If my su ions are correct, this could be bigger than Benghazi,” he said.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...orowitz%20(54)
Last fall, researchers quizzed 6000 Americans, age 18 to 65, on health insurance and the new law.
Half didn't know about the insurance marketplaces, or their subsidies.
Forty-two percent couldn't define a deductible.
And two thirds didn't know the difference between an HMO, with its restrictive physician network, and a PPO, which typically offers more flexibility.
The full survey is in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Silvia Helena Barcellos et al, Preparedness of Americans for the Affordable Care Act]
Study author Silvia Helena Barcellos of U.S.C. says
those most likely to benefit from the law—like uninsured young and low-income respondents—typically know the least.
"It's very hard to believe that people will make informed choices…without having knowledge of these basic concepts." And until we master the basics, she says, simpler insurance options might be just what the doctor ordered.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/health-insurance-ignorance/?&WT.mc_id=SA_HLTH_20140401
"simpler insurance options", take that up the insurers who write the hyper-complicated, confusing policies, not ACA.
Megan McArdle pokes some holes in the Rand survey:
http://www.bloombergview.com/article...-what-we-don-tObamacare: What We Know and What We Don't
152 Mar 31, 2014 4:19 PM ET By Megan McArdle
Today is the end of the beginning for the Affordable Care Act.
Open enrollment closes today and, anecdotally, there has been a big surge in traffic, a heroic tribute to the American powers of procrastination. At this rate, the number of plan selections looks like it might hit, or at least get close to, 7 million. That won't mean 7 million people actually enrolled in health insurance, but it will certainly be a marketing coup for President Barack Obama's administration.
Nonetheless, as I wrote last week, there's still an immense amount we don't know. This morning's Los Angeles Times brings optimistic-sounding news based on a Rand Corp. enrollment survey. As the article puts it:
Precise figures on national health coverage will not be available for months. But available data indicate:But there are problems with all of that data.
• 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
• 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.
1. The biggest is that the latest surveys available don't cover the recent surge, which might be (probably is?) different from earlier signups. I'd expect it to contain more "young invincibles," more long-term uninsured and healthier people on average than earlier waves. I'd also expect it to contain more people who will select a plan and then not pay their premiums consistently. All that data, however, is yet to come.
2. Both Rand and McKinsey are doing surveys of relatively small groups. It's useful data to have, because it's the only data we have. But it could easily depart from reality, either by overstating the percentage of uninsured who have bought exchange policies or by understating it.
3. The Rand data isn't even published, so it's hard to be confident about what it says.
4. When I look at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report cited in the article, I'm not sure I see 3 million young people who have gained insurance because of the rules allowing them to stay on their parents' coverage. The accompanying chart shows the CDC data for 19-25-year-olds, who make up 85 percent of the affected age group (chart figures in millions).
Data: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention It seems likely that the law produced some reduction in the number of uninsured young adults. But no matter how you count the uninsured you can't come up with a number as high as 3 million, unless you assume that the gain among 26-year-olds was truly enormous -- 50 percent of the gain among 19-25-year-olds. That seems ... unlikely. Besides, to get that high you'd have to start counting in 2010, but the number of uninsured among all age groups peaked in 2010, not just 19- to 25-year-olds, presumably because of the recession. So if you count from 2010, you're capturing some people who got insurance not because of the Affordable Care Act but because the economy started to recover from the financial crisis.
5. Nine million people buying insurance in the private market over six months is not an exciting number; according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, almost 16 million people bought plans in the private market before the exchanges opened, so basically what this tells us is that over the course of half a year, slightly more than half of those with insurance in the prior year bought plans directly from insurers. Given that some people had their plans canceled because of the new law, this could be normal churn with no net addition of new coverage. Or it might not be. (This depends on how the study treats grandfathered plans, and how many grandfathered plans there were. Since I can't read the study, and we don't have actual data on the number of grandfathered plans, it's hard to say.) We don't know.
6. Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner points out that even if we accept these numbers, it's actually below what the Congressional Budget Office was projecting; unless the number of Medicaid enrollees also surges this month, and almost all of the new enrollees pay their premiums, it's hard to see how you get to 13 million fewer uninsured in 2014, which was what the CBO was projecting as recently as February. At Forbes, Avik Roy adds: “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.” Unless McKinsey and Rand are wildly off, that is.
The difference is my emotions are
"this could be normal churn with no net addition of new coverage"
Even it were QUAN Y churn (of junk policies), the new POLICIES are higher QUALITY (BETTER NET coverage).
Link to uncontrollable rage pleaseThe difference is my emotions are
Thanks for confirming my confirmation bias with an unbiased confirmation.
So, their goal was 7 million and they signed up 7.041 million?
Hmm.
if you read carefully, nothing was definitively confirmed or refuted. reliable stats aren't in yet. taking the McArdle article as confirmation of your POV underscores your confirmation bias.
the Rand survey, McArdle admits, could be wrong in either direction
Put the stimulus money in the hands of the public. Let them stimulate the economy by spending and retiring debt.
a good friend of mine -- solidly Republican, rabidly anti-Dem and anti-Obama -- suggested unironically in 2009 that it would have been better to write checks directly to taxpayers than to do what we did.
duh, sure, bail out Human-Americans, the Real Economy, rather than JUST the US (and EU, etc) financial sector.
The Fed and Treasury exist to protect/enrich the financial sector, only.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
