So, how is Obamacare doing?

[*Nately120*]

(07-05-2016, 01:26 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Said no one ever that went to the VA..... putting Government in charge of anything other that fighting wars just means more waste, fraud and abuse. Proven time and again....

Hmm, couldn't it be argued that a lack of competition and privatization regarding the manufacture of war supplies is yielding higher prices, and less output, and more biased interests?

[BmorePat87]

(07-01-2016, 07:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/obamacare-loses-16-million-customers-after-third-e/

Wasn't making health care available to everyone, and mandatory for everyone to have, and forcing insurance companies to cover all sorts of ridiculous shit supposed to fix everything??

According to your link "1 million more people had exchange coverage as of March 31 than at the same point in 2015."

That's good, right? Can we assume that some of those who dropped coverage via the marketplace are getting it from an employer now?

[SunsetBengal]

(07-05-2016, 03:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: According to your link "1 million more people had exchange coverage as of March 31 than at the same point in 2015."

That's good, right? Can we assume that some of those who dropped coverage via the marketplace are getting it from an employer now?

1/3 of 1% of the Nation?  Really man?

You and I both know that the administration thought that people would flock to it, in droves. Never happened.

[GMDino]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlaszewski2/2015/08/17/has-obamacare-really-reduced-the-uninsured-by-16-million-and-continued-to-show-strong-growth/#2174ca8e5cb4

Quote:As one headline put it, “After Obamacare Number of Uninsured Hits Five Year-Low.” Now, this headline might be technically correct but it hardly gives us the proper impression for why the uninsured rate has dropped so low.


Obamacare supporters have been citing two recent reports about the decline in the number of those uninsured:

• The federal government’s National Health Interview Survey found that 7 million fewer people were uninsured in the first three months of this year, when compared to the average for all of 2014. The uninsured rate has dropped to 9.2 percent of the population—a modern day low.
  

• A large independent survey called the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index found a statistically significant drop in the uninsured rate for most states since Obamacare launched in 2013. States that expanded Medicaid expansion saw bigger declines than the states that didn’t.
  

Some press reports credited Obamacare for this improvement in the number of people insured or at least strongly inferred that Obamacare is responsible for a reduction in the uninsured of 16 million.

• CQ HealthBeat: “Mounting evidence suggests that more people are benefiting from the 2010 health care law, with the number of Americans without medical coverage declining by one-third, or 15.8 million people, since 2013, according to the latest report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
  Recommended by ForbesMOST POPULARPhotos: America's Top 25 Colleges 2016TRENDING ON FACEBOOKIllinois Man Charged With Desecrating American Flag After Posting Photos On...Grads of LifeVoice: 6 Ways to Take Your Diversity + Inclusion Program from Intention to Impact
• The Hill: “16M Fewer Uninsured Since Obamacare, Study Finds”
• And, in a  Huffington Post article: “New Report Confirms What The GOP Won’t Admit: Obamacare is working” – “The report doesn’t identify a reason for the decline [in the uninsured]. It simply communicates survey findings. But the timing and characteristics of the trend make the primary reason obvious: It’s President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.”
• Yahoo Finance: “Obamacare Drives Uninsured Rate to New Low”
  

But where are these newly covered people getting their coverage?

A May, 2015 Rand Corporation study for a comparable period found about the same decline in the number of those uninsured but gave us the rest of the story.
From the study summary:

Quote:Insurance coverage has increased across all types of insurance since the major provisions of the federal Affordable Care Act took effect, with a net total of 16.9 million people becoming newly enrolled through February 2015, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
Researchers estimate that from September 2013 to February 2015, 22.8 million Americans became newly insured and 5.9 million lost coverage, for a net of 16.9 million newly insured Americans.

Among those newly gaining coverage, 9.6 million people enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans, followed by Medicaid (6.5 million), the individual marketplaces (4.1 million), non marketplace individual plans (1.2 million) and other insurance sources (1.5 million).

The Forbes eBook On Obamacare 
Inside Obamacare: The Fix For America’s Ailing Health Care System explores the ways the Affordable Care Act will impact your health care.

So, more than half of the reduction in the number of people who are uninsured is coming from an old fashioned increase in the number of people being covered in employer health plans. You will recall that the Obamacare employer mandate was delayed during 2014 so we can hardly credit the big employer gains to that part of Obamacare. Nor, is there much evidence that the individual mandate has had a big impact on enrollment–few people signed up by the special tax deadline extension. I will suggest those employer coverage gains could just as easily have more to do with a recovering economy and employment improvement.

As Rand points out, the Obamacare insurance exchange enrollment is tepid at best­­­­—accounting for only a gain in the number of insured of 4.1 million people.

As I have pointed out before, only about 40% of those eligible for the Obamacare insurance exchanges have so far signed up with exchange enrollment far behind the original CBO enrollment estimate of the 13 million for 2015. And, the vast majority of those who have signed up are people with very low incomes who pay the lowest premiums and get the most help with their deductibles and co-pays.

The biggest Obamacare gains are coming from the Medicaid expansion. Something people get for free in the states that have expanded it under Obamacare.
And it was widely reported last week that 943,934 new enrollees have signed up since open enrollment ended on Feb. 22, through the “special enrollment periods (SEPs).” The SEPs are for people newly eligible after the close of the annual open enrollment because of life changes that caused them to lose their prior coverage, such as divorce or job loss.

For example, this headline on Kaiser Health News: “Nearly 1 Million People Signed Up For Obamacare After the Open Enrollment Closed.” This headline is technically correct but again hardly gives a clear picture of what’s going on.

What these reports overlooked is something that Stephnie Armour at the Wall Street Journal did not miss:

Quote:About 8.8 million people selected a plan or were re-enrolled through HealthCare.gov during open enrollment this year. As of March 31, 7.5 million had coverage and paid premiums.

So, 1.3 million people fell off this spring’s Obamacare rolls while 949,934 signed up after the open enrollment period.

Overall, that is 949,934 steps forward and 1.3 million steps backward for the federal Obamacare exchange enrollment.

More, the Obama administration hasn’t yet told us how many people dropped their coverage since March 31st. Health plans are telling me that their Obamacare enrollment, like last year, melts at the rate of about 2% each month.

I will suggest that it is important for these reporters to ask the administration how many more have dropped their coverage during the same period people used the Special Enrollment Period.

Here’s the bottom line. The Obamacare insurance exchanges aren’t enrolling anywhere near the number of people they were supposed to. And, there is no proof Obamacare has grown since the close of open enrollment. In fact the anecdotal and historical evidence would suggest it is now shrinking.

But we really don’t know because the Obama administration is just reporting the good news and a good share of the press appears to be happy to pass these numbers along–albeit in a technically correct but hardly complete way.

[CKwi88]

(07-05-2016, 03:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: According to your link "1 million more people had exchange coverage as of March 31 than at the same point in 2015."

That's good, right? Can we assume that some of those who dropped coverage via the marketplace are getting it from an employer now?

I know that the ACA is the reason that I can get health insurance working as a per diem for the state of CT. Before we wouldn't qualify, and now I get some absolutely bitchin health insurance for next to nothing. 

So, Obamacare is doing just fine for me.  

[GMDino]

(07-05-2016, 07:26 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I know that the ACA is the reason that I can get health insurance working as a per diem for the state of CT. Before we wouldn't qualify, and now I get some absolutely bitchin health insurance for next to nothing. 

So, Obamacare is doing just fine for me.  

From the anecdotes I've heard it has been helpful for some, and not for others.

We are insured through my wife's work and so far it hasn't hurt us much at all.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-05-2016, 02:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hmm, couldn't it be argued that a lack of competition and privatization regarding the manufacture of war supplies is yielding higher prices, and less output, and more biased interests?

Who told you there is no competition in armaments manufacturing?

[Rotobeast]

(07-05-2016, 11:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Who told you there is no competition in armaments manufacturing?

I was going to post this earlier.

http://www.seexpo.com/index.php/index/Search/industry/fid/103/sid/464

[BmorePat87]

(07-05-2016, 07:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: 1/3 of 1% of the Nation?  Really man?

You and I both know that the administration thought that people would flock to it, in droves.  Never happened.

Well your initial claim was that a very broad law was probably not working because 1.6 million of the 12.7 million people who subscribed this year dropped out of it 2 months later. You're now suggesting that it's not working because only 1 million more Americans are using the exchange (only one aspect of the law) this year than used it last year. 

Estimates suggest 42 million Americans did not have insurance before the law. Gallup suggests that the uninsured rate has dropped over 6% (from 17.1% to 11%) since the individual mandate went into effect. What that means is 35% of those who were uninsured now have insurance. Nearly 14.7 million people. Not all of them are getting it through the exchanges. Some now get insurance from their employer when they didn't before. Some are now covered by mom and dad (under 26). Some might have dropped their costly insurance to get insurance through the exchange. 

Either way you cut it, 35% of those who were uninsured before the mandate now have insurance. It's working in that sense. And that's only part of the law.

If you want to attack the law, attack the poor rollout, the cost, and the fact that telling people they have to buy insurance should be considered unconstitutional (thanks Roberts). Your current line of attack is just false. 

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2016, 01:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well your initial claim was that a very broad law was probably not working because 1.6 million of the 12.7 million people who subscribed this year dropped out of it 2 months later. You're now suggesting that it's not working because only 1 million more Americans are using the exchange (only one aspect of the law) this year than used it last year. 

Estimates suggest 42 million Americans did not have insurance before the law. Gallup suggests that the uninsured rate has dropped over 6% (from 17.1% to 11%) since the individual mandate went into effect. What that means is 35% of those who were uninsured now have insurance. Nearly 14.7 million people. Not all of them are getting it through the exchanges. Some now get insurance from their employer when they didn't before. Some are now covered by mom and dad (under 26). Some might have dropped their costly insurance to get insurance through the exchange. 

Either way you cut it, 35% of those who were uninsured before the mandate now have insurance. It's working in that sense. And that's only part of the law.

If you want to attack the law, attack the poor rollout, the cost, and the fact that telling people they have to buy insurance should be considered unconstitutional (thanks Roberts). Your current line of attack is just false. 

Rep.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-06-2016, 01:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well your initial claim was that a very broad law was probably not working because 1.6 million of the 12.7 million people who subscribed this year dropped out of it 2 months later. You're now suggesting that it's not working because only 1 million more Americans are using the exchange (only one aspect of the law) this year than used it last year. 

Estimates suggest 42 million Americans did not have insurance before the law. Gallup suggests that the uninsured rate has dropped over 6% (from 17.1% to 11%) since the individual mandate went into effect. What that means is 35% of those who were uninsured now have insurance. Nearly 14.7 million people. Not all of them are getting it through the exchanges. Some now get insurance from their employer when they didn't before. Some are now covered by mom and dad (under 26). Some might have dropped their costly insurance to get insurance through the exchange. 

Either way you cut it, 35% of those who were uninsured before the mandate now have insurance. It's working in that sense. And that's only part of the law.

If you want to attack the law, attack the poor rollout, the cost, and the fact that telling people they have to buy insurance should be considered unconstitutional (thanks Roberts). Your current line of attack is just false. 

Great post, Pat.  You inspired me to do a little more reading.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlaszewski2/2015/08/17/has-obamacare-really-reduced-the-uninsured-by-16-million-and-continued-to-show-strong-growth/#681dc0745cb4

[Mike M (the other one)]

The ACA was poorly done, and could've been so much better.
This is what happens when 2 parties can't agree on anything. Everyone gets screwed, even them, but they went back and fixed it for themselves, but we're still screwed.
I might be a Republican at heart, but this is one of the few areas where I believe that we should all pay a flat tax for and EVERY USC is covered, expand Medicare if you have to, but do it right. Now with it done this way (coming straight out of your taxes), Employer's no longer have to mess with all of that and can raise our wages a little to compensate. If our earning power goes up, then we as consumers will spend more. Honestly, it's not hard to do some of these things. All we have to do is look at how other countries do it (successfully) and model ours after theirs with adjustments as to where we think we can make it better.

Taking care of Americans should be a Politician's first Priority.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2016, 08:48 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Great post, Pat.  You inspired me to do a little more reading.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlaszewski2/2015/08/17/has-obamacare-really-reduced-the-uninsured-by-16-million-and-continued-to-show-strong-growth/#681dc0745cb4

You mean the story I already posted?  LOL!

[SunsetBengal]

(07-07-2016, 09:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: You mean the story I already posted?  LOL!

Hey, don't strain your shoulder, while patting yourself on the back..

[GMDino]

(07-07-2016, 10:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hey, don't strain your shoulder, while patting yourself on the back..

Just making sure you were reading the posts.   








































 

[*michaelsean*]

It made more sense when Pat posted it.

[GMDino]

(07-07-2016, 11:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It made more sense when Pat posted it.

I'm just ahead of the curve....  

[JustWinBaby]

(07-03-2016, 10:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Since when is expanding Medicaid any sort of alternative answer?

Well, that's effectively what Obamacare did - a decrease in uninsured from 14.6% (pre-recession) to 11.0%, the majority of those coming from Medicaid expansion.  So we're still paying for them just like we were before....but that $2500 savings is going to kick-in any day now.  Any day.  

Gee, if only there had been a way to increase Medicaid coverage without a massive re-write of the healthcare industry....

I don't have a good answer.  Neither, it appears, do Democrats - I mean, how's that single payer working in Vermont?  Sometimes doing nothing is the best option out of alternatives presented.  Or we can all just jump on the massively inefficient gubmit bandwagon.

Although I admire the eagerness to tear it up and start from scratch.  Would like to see that mentality in many other wasteful govt initiatives.

But, yeah, if you want an answer a hybrid public/private model probably makes the most sense. But allowing the private model to remain doesn't fit the autocratic liberal agenda.