Obamacare: 7million exchange enrollments, ~8-9m plans sold directly, ~8m covered by other provisions

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Yeah man... the fething owners of Hobby Lobby are fething dumb asses for opposing certain contraceptives, and yet at the same time, they're laughing all the way to the fething bank by knowingly investing in those same companies.

I can't say I have a lot of respect for the intelligence of a person that is willing to challenge ACA under the First Amendment if that person doesn't actually know where his money is going.

Not everyone is perfect.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Not everyone is perfect.

In this instance he should be.

He is a CEO, if he cannot be perfect or has no interest in being perfect, then he should resign (read: retire). He should go play fetch with his dogs, drink beer, and eat barbecue.

**Ouze**

dogma wrote:
If I ever meet Molly Redden I will buy that woman a drink.

I made a conscious decision to use the Forbes link because I knew posting the original MoJo article would have resulted in 2x butthurt despite the fact they actually practice the dying art we used to call "Journalism".

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Not everyone is perfect.

In this instance he should be.

He is a CEO, if he cannot be perfect or has no interest in being perfect, then he should resign (read: retire). He should go play fetch with his dogs, drink beer, and eat barbecue.

Wow... um. Okay. Get on the board and vote him out.

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
Jives with what Rubio said earlier on Fox....if they even paid. If the fine is lower then overall payment..which route a young adult in the US is going to choose to do.

Do you want me to convert this in to another language for you? French? Japanese?

The number that haven't paid haven't done so because their enrolment hasn't been fully processed, or isn't due because their enrolment is yet to start. It's no different to if you buy a car - you walk in and sign some papers, and anyone who says 'that doesn't count and it isn't really a sale because he hasn't paid yet' is being ridiculous.

Of the people who have had their enrolments processed and had their coverage start, the payments have rolled in just fine. It is a political line of bs - the new line being sold after 'ha ha no-one is enrolling ACA is a disaster' turned out to be bs. After 'there's no kids enrolled death spiral' turned out to be bs. At what point are you going to stop turning up to believe lie after lie?

Don't look to far into this. Even some Dem's are concern.

http://medcitynews.com/2014/03/democrats-uniting-push-2-big-changes-obamacare/

Was that the right link? It's a proposal to offer another lower level of care insurance, and change the employer mandate. Not unreasonable reforms, if you ask me (dependant on the details) but absolutely nothing to do with any problem in the current enrolment numbers.

Six month down the road I say both sides of the party going to agree to a revamp of ACA.

ACA and the greater healthcare system should continue to be reformed in an on-going process. That's how it is supposed to work. I don't think that will happen, though, because healthcare is so horribly political.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Not everyone is perfect.

I find it deeply hilarious that a person could claim it is a grave breach of their religious freedom that they might pay in to a pool of money that their employees might access to subsidize certain contraceptives... but at the same time have so little interest in their own religious convictions that they don't bother to check if they are invested in companies that produce those kinds of contraceptive devices.

This is exactly what I was getting at when I said this new standard of religious freedom was total bs. No-one lives day by day worrying that second and third parties might use some small portion of your money for some other purpose. How long did the gay community actually stop going to Chik-Fil-A before they lost interest?

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
I enroll

Pick a plan

Not pay so not completing the process.

Yet I be part of the 7.1 million "enrolled" into ACA.

Yes, you 'can'. But to go from 'a person might have done that' to 'people have done this in serious numbers' would require some kind of measure of people who's plans have become valid, but who have never paid their premiums. And there is no measure of that at all. You think insurance companies would remain quiet if a a large number of enrollments they picked up through the exchanges weren't paying the first premium?

So instead, all we have is this claim that 15% haven't paid. Which boils down to 15% of enrollments haven't made a payment because their claims haven't been processed, or haven't become due yet. Which is only an interesting thing if we pretend time doesn't exist, and those people won't become due in time.

As for the car buying pitch. You can put a down payment to get the car but you can also stop paying monthly on it after a month. You still own the car after repo and you still owe the money...

Of course you can do that, and of course it does happen from time to time. But to claim that happens often enough that the dealer shouldn't book the profit when the contract is signed is way out of line with normal business practice. It would require, you know, some kind of measure that in this instance, for some reason, that people are actually reaching their first payment and not paying. It would require you to say 'in February, when 1,000 people had their first payment fall due, 45 failed to make a payment, therefore 4.5% of the people who have signed on the buy cars can be considered unlikely to make their first payment'.

And that simply doesn't exist with ACA - there is no indication that any numbers are missing their first payment by the day it is due.

Wait....Your not one of those "ACA can do no wrong" type are you?

There are many problems with ACA. Private insurance with defined coverage options is just weird. The cost savings measures still manage to vastly overpay for drugs. The whole thing is a really weird rundabout way of getting universal coverage without actually cutting insurance companies out of the loop. And despite building the framework for community ratings and building a system where individual enrolment works, they then stopped short of the reform from which vast efficiencies could be reaped - get employers out of the system - instead they actually increased the requirement for employers to pay for employee healthcare.

But the Republican complaints that you're repeating here - those simply make no sense.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:
Not everyone is perfect.

I find it deeply hilarious that a person could claim it is a grave breach of their religious freedom that they might pay in to a pool of money that their employees might access to subsidize certain contraceptives... but at the same time have so little interest in their own religious convictions that they don't bother to check if they are invested in companies that produce those kinds of contraceptive devices.

This is exactly what I was getting at when I said this new standard of religious freedom was total bs. No-one lives day by day worrying that second and third parties might use some small portion of your money for some other purpose. How long did the gay community actually stop going to Chik-Fil-A before they lost interest?

Yeah... that's a fair point.

I just think this whole thing is sorta silly.

Silly for Hobby Lobby... but, I support that endeavor on this crusade.

Silly for HHS to mandate this, as it's really unnecessary. If it was truly determined that this mandate is really, REALLY needed... why didn't Congress pass it and fund it themselve? (bah, that's different topic)

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Silly for Hobby Lobby... but, I support that endeavor on this crusade.

It isn't just silly though. I mean, can we honestly claim it's a breach of religious freedom when they were engaging with those companies in a far more substantial way and not even noticing?

And it isn't as though this is the first time people have been claiming this is a great breach of their religious conviction. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church said he'd go to jail before he covered contraception... only to have it pointed out to him under California law he'd already been covering it for years and he'd just never noticed.

Silly for HHS to mandate this, as it's really unnecessary. If it was truly determined that this mandate is really, REALLY needed... why didn't Congress pass it and fund it themselve? (bah, that's different topic)

And I agree with you there. But then, I don't think there's any need to mandate employer provided insurance at all, and certainly no need to allow it to be provided tax free. But then that's probably far too right wing for this place

**Jihadin**

Back off Sebster. Your saying that everyone is paying that enrolled or already paid. I can "enroll" now and not pay and with no intention of paying if the fine is lower then the overall total premium.

I break it down for you

I enroll

Pick a plan

Not pay so not completing the process.

Yet I be part of the 7.1 million "enrolled" into ACA.

Yet your "view point" is I'm a paying member of ACA due to me being enrolled..but I am not paying.

As for the car buying pitch. You can put a down payment to get the car but you can also stop paying monthly on it after a month. You still own the car after repo and you still owe the money...

Wait....Your not one of those "ACA can do no wrong" type are you?

**djones520**

What Jihadin said. That 7.1 million is a fluff number, and nothing more. The people who have actually paid, and thereby actually gotten plans is "not known".

**Frazzled**

easysauce wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I thought there were supposedly 49mm legal citizens without health care. If 6mm lost insurance and 7mm gained it, all this for...1mm?

Dont forget, 48millon who still dont have insurance get to pay a fine now for not having insurance.

Last I heard the vast majority of OB care sign ups were the "old and sick" catagory, with "young and healthies" opting out for the most part.

The system still has 0 way to sustain itself... and as someone who fully supports social health care, I am deeply saddened that such a flawed, doomed to fail, approach was taken by the dems+obama. Especially when working, proven, examples of socialized insurance exist to emulate.

Agreed on all points. The US may have the most efficient logistical systems in the world for delivering hamburgers the same across the globe, but when it comes to designing and implementing anything related to government, well, lets just say we have a lot to learn from Bulgaria.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

No. Seven million signed up directly through exchanges.

And six million lost their plans

On top of that you have another 9.5 million who are covered due to Medicaid expansion

COuld have done that without Obama care

, extended family coverage etc... And everyone of those cases is people who were not previously covered.

Could have done that without Obama care. Its the only parts of the program people like.

Now taking you at your word thats 10.5mm who now have coverage. That leaves 39mm legal (I stress the word legal here as you also have 20mm illegal aliens here). What a cluster. Its like saying Operation Market Garden was 90% successful.

**djones520**

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/03/31/rand-only-one-third-of-obamacare-exchange-sign-ups-were-from-the-previously-uninsured/

Only about 1/4 of those who have signed up so far were actually uninsured before.

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
As already explained, the people who had not yet paid were people who's claims were still being processed, or who's first day of coverage hadn't yet begun. Which is exactly what you'd expect of any system where you enroll up to thirty days before your coverage starts.

So we should have information on those who enrolled 31+ days ago as their contributions should be due already

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Wow... um. Okay. Get on the board and vote him out.

I give precisely enough of a damn to take a strong stance on a forum dedicated to Warhammer. Far less of a damn than would be required to infiltrate Hobby Lobby's board.

whembly wrote:

Silly for HHS to mandate this, as it's really unnecessary. If it was truly determined that this mandate is really, REALLY needed... why didn't Congress pass it and fund it themselve? (bah, that's different topic)

A public birth control option? Yeah, that would go over real well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/03/31/rand-only-one-third-of-obamacare-exchange-sign-ups-were-from-the-previously-uninsured/

Only about 1/4 of those who have signed up so far were actually uninsured before.

The original article is much better.

But Avik Roy couldn't even cite that correctly. I'm going to guess this...

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

...is where he got his headline. Notice how the argument is not "Only One-Third Of Obamacare Exchange Sign-Ups Were From The Previously Uninsured" and it wasn't made by RAND? Yeah, Mr. Roy immediately took that quote, turned it into a headline, and used it to try and legitimize the McKinsey & Co. survey.

Sloppy journalism.

**Co'tor Shas**

Personally I would like to know how many people got Medicaid after it was expanded. Anybody have those stats?

**Ouze**

dogma wrote:
Sloppy journalism.

Speaking of, how is it possible they could have reached 7 million at all in only 4 days? Look how far they had to go, according to this Fox News chart:

THEY WEREN'T EVEN HALFWAY THERE

clearly this is a bigger scandal then Benghazi.

**Co'tor Shas**

I love that chart. 6 mil is 3 lines. But 1.066 mil is 5? Oh, Fox

.

**sebster**

djones520 wrote:
What Jihadin said. That 7.1 million is a fluff number, and nothing more. The people who have actually paid, and thereby actually gotten plans is "not known".

This is beyond a joke.

First up, we know that 85% have paid. So your claim there is just straight up ignorance.

Second up, we have absolutely zero, none, no reason at all to believe that any more than the most trivial number of enrollments will default when their first payment becomes due. Once again, this is exactly like Ford Motor Company saying they've sold 500,000 cars, and some idiot in the back row shouting out 'yeah, but only 85% have made a payment'... because only 85% have actually had their first payment fall due.

**Ouze**

It's OK, we'll be moving on to some new nonsense in 30 days anyway now that we've played out the "didn't get 7 million enrollees" chain, and have just about played out the "but not really 7 million enrollees" thread. I wonder what it will be next month.

**sebster**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So we should have information on those who enrolled 31+ days ago as their contributions should be due already

Yeah. And I look forward to you moving on to some other random issue when this one disappears in a puff of nonsense like all the other supposed issues have before it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
It's OK, we'll be moving on to some new nonsense in 30 days anyway now that we've played out the "didn't get 7 million enrollees" chain, and have just about played out the "but not really 7 million enrollees" thread. I wonder what it will be next month.

I was typing out that exact point to Dreadclaw as you posted it.

**Jihadin**

Next month will be Medicaid/Medicare premium payment estimate for next month. Which either going to hold at current or go higher for next year. I'm estimating on that. Overall six month down the road I've a feeling we're going to find out we, taxpayers, are either going to pump money into the program to save it or it'll be a slow drain. Since I figure a good grasp of it be five years down the road. With fine "One Year" contract statistic with a five year record one can have a chance to have an accurate estimate over all. The key is for more young people to enroll and pay into it. The Copper plan that's being introduce by some democrats along with some other adjustments they recommend is fielded on the Senate floor for debate and vote. All one can do now is adjust with the flow or revamp portions at a time to streamline it. Again as I mention more young people have to enroll and pay into it being more and more retiree's and seniors are going into it. The uninsured peeps no longer matters now being its tread or sink time.

**Maddermax**

So, exchange goal reached, a bunch of people extra covered by medicade (though not as many as if it were expanded in all states) and because of the sub-26ers rule, and a lot of obamacare plans sold directly as well. Apparently, of all those now covered ~9.5 million were previously uninsured as well, so it's going to cut into that uninsured rate somewhat.

So the only question now is when the death panels kick in, to really get the show started...

**Breotan**

Ouze wrote:
It's OK, we'll be moving on to some new nonsense in 30 days anyway now that we've played out the "didn't get 7 million enrollees" chain, and have just about played out the "but not really 7 million enrollees" thread. I wonder what it will be next month.

Wait for the numbers to be adjusted down?

**sebster**

Breotan wrote:
Wait for the numbers to be adjusted down?

And if they're not? What then?

**Ouze**

then something else.

If the options are "admit we might have been wrong" or "move the goalposts while pretending the other set didn't exist", then I hate to tell you, Charlie Brown, but I don't think she's going to hold it the whole way there this time.

Sean Connery said it best.

**Jihadin**

0420 is to early to laugh that hard Ouze. Your evil Ouze

**Seaward**

Maddermax wrote:
So the only question now is when the death ~~panels~~ spiral kick in, to really get the show started...

Fixed that for you. The real question is what premium increases are going to look like next year.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
then something else.

If the options are "admit we might have been wrong" or "move the goalposts while pretending the other set didn't exist", then I hate to tell you, Charlie Brown, but I don't think she's going to hold it the whole way there this time.

Sean Connery said it best.

Ok, thats awesome. Do me next. Me me me!

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
Yeah. And I look forward to you moving on to some other random issue when this one disappears in a puff of nonsense like all the other supposed issues have before it.

So we don't have those figures then? But thank you for again stooping to inferring bad faith. It is almost as if you only have one string to your bow when we talk these days. As for the ACA discussion disappearing "in a puff of nonsense like all the other supposed issues have before it." I await to see the impact of;
- the employer mandate that has been repeatedly, unilaterally deferred by the Administration
- the results of the various law suits
As it appears that this is still very much a live issue

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
If the options are "admit we might have been wrong" or "move the goalposts while pretending the other set didn't exist", then I hate to tell you

Are we talking about the OT forum here, or the current Administration?

**Dreadclaw69**

Remember when we talked about people who signed up, who might not receive cover....

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/02/first-class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-nevada-obamacare-exchange/

Las Vegas (CBS LAS VEGAS) – Just days after the deadline to enroll for insurance coverage through Nevada Health Link, the first class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of residents who say they signed up and paid their premiums – but were never given coverage.
Law firm Callister & Associates filed the lawsuit on behalf of Larry Basich, who signed up for state health insurance and paid premiums as far back as November, but then was not covered following a Jan. 3 triple bypass procedure that saw his $400,000 in medical expenses passed between the wrong insurance companies, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court of Nevada on Tuesday alleges gross negligence and failure to do due diligence against the state of Nevada, the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange (which runs Nevada Health Link), and the company that won the contract to build the exchange, Xerox.
Four companies had responded with proposals to build the state’s Obamacare exchange, and Xerox won in what state officials said was a standard process for the national and state governments in reviewing bids for technology contracts. Xerox won the bid after receiving the highest-score on a state criteria list ranging from financial stability to comparable contract experience.
The Nevada state government has since given the second-place company, Deloitte Consulting, a $1.5 million contract to fix the Nevada Health Link.
Attorney Matthew Callister told the Review-Journal that about 40 people had called saying they had also paid their insurance premiums but have no coverage. As of last week, the Nevada Health Link had a “pends” list totaling more than 10,500 people still without coverage.
Lea Swartley, who also has received no coverage despite paying premiums, is the co-plaintiff in the lawsuit.
“There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Nevadans who have been paying premiums for 2, 3, 4 months, not receiving any coverage whatsoever,” Callister told KTNV-TV. “I talked to a mom an hour ago who has skin cancer and she can’t go in to have her skin cancer treatment because her doctor says, ‘Who is your carrier?’”
As of Saturday, 40,500 consumers had selected qualified health plans through the exchange. Of those, 24,000 had paid for coverage, the Associated Press reports.
Callister noted that the lawsuit is not an attack on the Affordable Care Act or the state’s insurance exchange.
“This has nothing to do with the ACA. This is 100 percent about Xerox, who won the bid from the state of Nevada to create this exchange. And they’ve failed. They absolutely failed,” Callister told the Review-Journal.
“I just want to get people covered who paid for coverage,” Callister said. “State law said that’s what’s supposed to happen.”