Only 28% of ObamaCare enrollees are 18-34

posted at 1:21 pm on May 2, 2014 by Bruce McQuain

The demographic that was key to holding down health care costs apparently came in well below the level necessary to ensure that:

Just more than a quarter of the eight million people who signed up for health plans under the Affordable Care Act are in the prized demographic of 18 to 34 years old, falling short of the figure considered ideal to keep down policy prices.

The data, released Thursday by the Obama administration, painted a more complete picture of enrollment in the plans. They show that about 28% of people picking plans on the state and federal insurance exchanges by April 19—after most states’ enrollment deadlines passed—were 18 to 34 years old, a generally healthy group. The proportion is higher than previous counts. But it is significantly below the 40% level that some analysts consider important for holding down rates by balancing the greater medical spending generated by older enrollees.

Insurers right now are setting rates for 2015, and the age data will be a key factor in their decisions. Some insurers say that despite seeing a late surge in younger enrollees, their sign-ups still skewed older overall than they had expected.

Because the “healthy” demographic sign-up fell well below expectations, the rates for 2015 are expected to be at a higher rate.  And, of course, there’s the further problem that “enrollment” doesn’t necessarily mean that the enrollee has paid for coverage.  As noted in an earlier post:

Data provided to the committee by every insurance provider in the health care law’s Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) shows that, as of April 15, 2014, only 67 percent of individuals and families that had selected a health plan in the federally facilitated marketplace had paid their first month’s premium and therefore completed the enrollment process. Nationwide, only 25 percent of paid enrollees are ages 18 to 34

And finally, the assumption is that the 18 to 34 demographic will be a “healthy demographic” relatively speaking and will carry the cost for the more sickly among us.  That too may be an erroneous assumption:

While the 18-34-year-old cohort has been dubbed the “young and healthy,” a more accurate moniker might be “young and somewhat healthy.”  68 percent of 18-34-year-olds on the federal exchanges chose a silver plan.  As I’ve written previously:

Why does this matter for the death spiral?  Because so many enrollees choosing silver plans suggests that the risk pool may be sicker than is optimal. For enrollees at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level, silver plans tend to offer the most coverage for the lowest price.  For persons under 250 percent FPL, ObamaCare offers help with copays and deductibles, but only if the consumer chooses a silver plan. The actuarial value for a silver plan is 70 percent (that is, a silver plan must, on average, cover 70 percent of a policyholder’s medical claims), but when the subsidies for cost-sharing are included, the actuarial value rises to between 73 and 94 percent. As one writer notes, “Why would someone opt for a silver-level plan over a cheaper bronze or catastrophic-level plan? The most plausible explanation is that the enrollee anticipates incurring significant medical expenses over the coming year, which is to say that he’s not healthy.”

Since income tends to be lower the younger one is, a lot of those 18-34-year-olds are probably in that <250 percent FPL range.  The inordinate number of 18-34-year-olds choosing silver plans suggests that the exchanges have attracted young and healthy people that are not that healthy.

Not only may they not be young and healthy, but they’ll most likely be receiving high subsidies which, again, sort of defeats the whole purpose of signing up that demographic, doesn’t it?  And it certainly calls into further question whether or not even the 28% that signed up will have any significant effect in helping to lower costs.

Bottom line? Well, to quote a well-known conservative talk show host, we’ve again been treated to a heaping helping of “bovine scatology”.   Not that anyone at all familiar with this president and his administration should at all be surprised.

~McQ

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

everdiso is having a very bad day.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 1:24 PM

And I will wage a substantial amount that many of this select group are among the unpaid.

pat on May 2, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Insurers right now are setting rates for 2015, and the age data will be a key factor in their decisions. Some insurers say that despite seeing a late surge in younger enrollees, their sign-ups still skewed older overall than they had expected.

Wow! I wonder what the next part of Obamacare is going to be changed next.

Maybe HHS will demand to review all proposed rate increases before they can be released to the public. A process which, coincidentally, wouldn’t be finished until after the first Tuesday in November.

Happy Nomad on May 2, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Who surprised that sick people are the ones that signed up? Anybody?

cajunpatriot on May 2, 2014 at 1:29 PM

everdiso is having a very bad daylife.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 1:24 PM

I mean, c’mon. Let’s be fair. He’s not even right twice a day.

bigmacdaddy on May 2, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Not surprised by the result. However, the result isn’t a failure. It’s a feature.

We’re inching ever closer to single payer by design.

LaserBeam on May 2, 2014 at 1:33 PM

I wonder what kind of pressure Obama’s going to put on insurers to hold off announcement of premium increases.

BuckeyeSam on May 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM

“Hey now easy. This is not the hill we want to die on. ObamaCare is here to stay. We Republicans need to make it work.

Because: Big Tent, popular agendas, no convictions, tolerance, and all things Democrat…..”

- GOP Strategery

Augustinian on May 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM

I really don’t care about who’s enrolled in BarkyCare. I don’t care how many are enrolled (even paying) nor do I care about the makeup of that group. It just doesn’t matter one iota.

BarkyCare is un-Constitutional, un-American and just downright stupid. It must go. The point of who or what has enrolled in it is not worthy of discussion, since it doesn’t matter at all. When you guys take the bait and argue about the demographics of the people on national socialized health insurance you are just making the McMoron-Rodgers argument, in a way.

The only thing to say about BarkyCare is: IT HAS TO GO!!!

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM

And if they say it’s 28% it really means it’s only 14%…

PatriotRider on May 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Insurers right now are setting rates for 2015, and the age data will be a key factor in their decisions. Some insurers say that despite seeing a late surge in younger enrollees, their sign-ups still skewed older overall than they had expected.

Long odds that the ‘drops’ in 2015, due to raised premiums, are reported by the MSM.

socalcon on May 2, 2014 at 1:41 PM

I am waiting impatiently for some organization of medical providers to proclaim that they refuse to accept ANY insurance, public or private, including Medicare and Medicaid. That will immediately free them from oppressive obligations of EMTALA (the law that should have condemned Reagan’s name to infamy if more people knew about it), and pretty much kill the entire premise of governmental run healthcare.

Rix on May 2, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Unacceptable. It needs to be a criminal offense not to have health insurance. Also, federal civilian employees should be required to buy their insurance from the exchanges.

malclave on May 2, 2014 at 1:48 PM

And when they see that the premiums are cutting into their weed funds…

Electrongod on May 2, 2014 at 1:48 PM

All according to plan. Just another in a long line of failing entitlement programs that needs to be “fixed” with another entitlement program, presumably involving singer payer. And then we’ll need more heroic Democrats to fix that in the future, and on and on.

JeremiahJohnson on May 2, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Well Obama’s victory lap has well become extinct….

sorrowen on May 2, 2014 at 1:53 PM

“bovine scatology,” that’s a good one haha

Sachiko on May 2, 2014 at 1:55 PM

…but it’s ok!…they are cutting back services…especially to seniors… to make up for it…what was going on in the VA Hospital in Arizona…multiply that by thousands of hospitals, coming soon around the country (once they can make sure to make their ‘cost saving’ efforts less detectable)…and bingo bango!…millions of bonus bucks will be paid…and they won’t need the healthy enrollees!

KOOLAID2 on May 2, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Those calling for single payer are fools the Feds can’t run this piece of legislative trash much less a single payer. At this point we are getting a idea of how single payer would be and we don’t like it….

sorrowen on May 2, 2014 at 1:58 PM

So much for Bob Beckle’s it’s working claims…it’s only barely functional…

sorrowen on May 2, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Can you say ‘death spiral’ boys and girls?

GarandFan on May 2, 2014 at 2:00 PM

The discussion is over!

butch on May 2, 2014 at 2:03 PM

With Obamacare allowing parents to put their kids on their health insurance plans up to the age of 26, I’m surprised it is that high.

Queasy on May 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM

As Charles Kruathammer would say it’s still a diseaster although it’s been a on going disaster.

sorrowen on May 2, 2014 at 2:10 PM

The 100% premium spike is barreling down the rails.

NotCoach on May 2, 2014 at 2:10 PM

everdiso is having a very bad day.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Maybe he actually showed up for class today. Now his professor is having a REALLY bad day.

CurtZHP on May 2, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Also that it’s the law of the land excuse will not cut it anymore it’s a complete failure with sky high premiums it will not be the law of the land for long.

sorrowen on May 2, 2014 at 2:15 PM

So much for that 8 million figure…or 7 million it’s way,way lower then that….

sorrowen on May 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM

This data is not about Obamacare specifically.

/Carney

Left Coast Right Mind on May 2, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Stats fail.

Look don’t you think it’s kind of important to know what % of the overall population is 18-34 to know whether 28% is high or low? Yep. So let’s see:

18-34: 73.7 million (23.5%)

see here (from 2012)

Now double check me here but last I checked 28% > 23.5%
so…that means the 18-34 crowd is actually over-represented among obamacare enrollees.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Unacceptable. It needs to be a criminal offense not to have health insurance. Also, federal civilian employees should be required to buy their insurance from the exchanges.

malclave on May 2, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Where in the Constitution does it allow the federal government to require an individual citizen to buy something? Even the (very wrong) recent Supreme Court decision couched their de facto approval of 0-care as the federal government’s having the ability to tax any darn thing they wanted, not that the federal government otherwise compel purchases.

I maintain that unless I have a communicable disease or am a federal employee (civilian or military or in some circumstances contractor), it is none of their business.

Kevin K. on May 2, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Say – isn’t this age group also the highest rate of default and cancellations due to non payment across all industries?

Odie1941 on May 2, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Not only may they not be young and healthy, but they’ll most likely be receiving high subsidies which, again, sort of defeats the whole purpose of signing up that demographic, doesn’t it?

Exactly…

mnjg on May 2, 2014 at 3:17 PM

that means the 18-34 crowd is actually over-represented among obamacare enrollees.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM

The administration didn’t say they wanted a representative percentage; they said they wanted enough people paying for services they aren’t using to cover the cost of the sick people using tons of services. That’s why they said 40%.

Try and keep up, please; it’s even more embarrassing when it’s the administration’s own numbers.

The Schaef on May 2, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Stats fail.

Look don’t you think it’s kind of important to know what % of the overall population is 18-34 to know whether 28% is high or low? Yep. So let’s see:

Tlaloc

Which might be relevant if not for the fact that what matters is the make up of the pool of paying participants. The 18-34 cohort needs to be a higher % of the pool in order for the scam to work.

Even at equal representation this farce is going to fail.

I really wish you fascists would just go find another country to destroy.

chimney sweep on May 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Now double check me here but last I checked 28% > 23.5%
so…that means the 18-34 crowd is actually over-represented among obamacare enrollees.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM

The critical point is that they need 40% of the enrollees to be young and healthy so they will be paying for insurance but using the medical system a lot less than the less healthy people and hence their insurance payment and lower medical cost will make up for the higher medical cost of the less healthy people… They got only 28% of younger people, and many of them are not healthy so there will be no offset of the medical cost at all but rather an increase…

mnjg on May 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Insurance companies say 90% have paid, GOP congressmen say 66% have paid.

everdiso on May 1, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Most people here still believe the “5-10 million have lost insurance thanks to ocare” whopper that was imediately debunked as the obious lie it was.

everdiso on May 1, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Schadenfreude on May 2, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Now double check me here but last I checked 28% > 23.5%
so…that means the 18-34 crowd is actually over-represented among obamacare enrollees.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM

I see you know nothing about actuarial science, healthcare or the insurance industry. Democrat, right?

Odie1941 on May 2, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM

But that is not what they were going for. They wanted 40% of sign ups to be in that age group.

You can keep spouting off all the talking points you want, but the truth will out you.

Barred on May 2, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Guess Tialoc is the new healthcare troll.

Barred on May 2, 2014 at 3:29 PM

They show that about 28% of people picking plans on the state and federal insurance exchanges by April 19—after most states’ enrollment deadlines passed—were 18 to 34 years old, a generally healthy group.

I’m sorry, picking a plan and paying for it are two different things. Let’s err on the side of caution and assume that 80% of these young healthy people actually paid for their Insurance. That means only 22% of that age group counts when most experts said it would need 40% to work.

Hmmmmmmm……..

Johnnyreb on May 2, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Stats fail.

Look don’t you think it’s kind of important to know what % of the overall population is 18-34 to know whether 28% is high or low? Yep.

Tlaloc

Nope.

Generally speaking, the goal is to enroll young adults in approximately the same proportion that they represent in the pool of potential individual market enrollees. This potential market includes people who are:

>Currently uninsured or buying their own insurance already.

>Not eligible for Medicaid or affordable employer coverage.

>Residing in the country legally.

Using the basic approach described here, we analyzed the Survey of Income and Program Participation to estimate the age distribution of potential individual market enrollees. As Figure 2 shows, 40% of the potential market is represented by adults age 18-34.

.

http://kff.org/health-reform/perspective/the-numbers-behind-young-invincibles-and-the-affordable-care-act/

lynncgb on May 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM

 
Hey, good to see you again. We were worried about you after you let your other Obamacare thread die.
 
Glad you’re okay.

rogerb on May 2, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Now double check me here but last I checked 28% > 23.5%
so…that means the 18-34 crowd is actually over-represented among obamacare enrollees.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Great point. It shows how silly their goal of 40% was.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 4:05 PM

So, my guess is that most of these 18-34 year olds have pre-existing conditions or require/qualify for subsidies. These are the expensive, non-healthy 18-34 year olds.

Circling the drain…if only more than 0′care were CTD!

freedomfirst on May 2, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Heh.

The insurers set their premiums precisely on an exoectation of 25-30%, and now that the numbers are coming in exactly as expected, they are no longer projecting any significant premium hikes for next year.

If you guys think the insurers are dissappointed by 28%, you’re fooling yourselves.

The self delusion around here is awe inspiring.

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Stats fail.

Look don’t you think it’s kind of important to know what % of the overall population is 18-34 to know whether 28% is high or low? Yep. So let’s see:

18-34: 73.7 million (23.5%)

see here (from 2012)

Now double check me here but last I checked 28% > 23.5%
so…that means the 18-34 crowd is actually over-represented among obamacare enrollees.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Brain fail on the part of Tlaloc.

You included in your analysis people who would have no reason to purchase Obamacare – including retirees who get medicare, and minor children (such as my one-year-old, covered under my policy) who would have no reason to purchase obamacare. This is why the 40% enrollment goal of the 18-34 age bracket. The 40% is not based upon the denominator being the total population, but the population who would be purchasing Obamacare policies.

Thanks to lyncgb for the excellent actuarial information.

Math is hard. Especially for liberals.

SubmarineDoc on May 2, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Now double check me here but last I checked 28% > 23.5%
so…that means the 18-34 crowd is actually over-represented among obamacare enrollees.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Don’t quit your day job, and make sure you wear that hairnet.

slickwillie2001 on May 2, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Heh.

The insurers set their premiums precisely on an exoectation of 25-30%, and now that the numbers are coming in exactly as expected, they are no longer projecting any significant premium hikes for next year.

If you guys think the insurers are dissappointed by 28%, you’re fooling yourselves.

The self delusion around here is awe inspiring.

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 5:09 PM

None of this is true.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 5:22 PM

RELEASE the DREADED DEATH SPIRAL!!!

KirknBurker on May 2, 2014 at 5:26 PM

The Hill: ObamaCare Premiums Set to Skyrocket

Eat that, everdiso you mouth breathing automaton.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Heh.

Are you really linking to opinion pieces from months ago?

That is adorable.

Problem is that the insurance companies now actually have their numbers, and are no longer worried about having to significantly hike premiums.

Read, learn:

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=fhFkU_GPCIOTyATgqYCYBQ&url=http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824440&cd=5&ved=0CDcQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNERDDuO4aT-SONbAi1YlYDOEk9WEQ&sig2=sniW-b3k8VzHrJLdmrfvgw

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 5:44 PM

That’s one insurer, everdiso. You said all insurers.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Yeah let’s use Google.ca (Canadian domain)to get to a website. Makes you wonder…

Murphy9 on May 2, 2014 at 5:49 PM

The self delusion around here is awe inspiring.

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 5:09 PM

What’s awe-inspiring is referring to numbers specifically noted by the administration, as self-delusion on the part of the persons talking about them.

The Schaef on May 2, 2014 at 5:55 PM

How’s the weather up there, everdiso?

rogerb on May 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM

That’s the “one” insurer that i quoted, who happens to be the biggest ocare insurer, and who happens to be the very source if the “double digit premium hikes” from a couple months back.

And every other insurer is singing the same refrain – feel free to look it up on your own time.

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 5:57 PM

A sizable number of 18-26 year olds can be covered by their parents’ polices.

Louey on May 2, 2014 at 5:57 PM

I also think it’s notable that everdiso referred to an article in which he considers this:

Jefferies & Co. analyst David Windley asked if WellPoint still expected double-digit 2015 premium increases, which the company previously said could be driven partly by health-law taxes and a smaller “reinsurance” financial safety net for high-cost patients.

“It’s not an easy one to answer because it’s going to vary by market, by product,” DeVeydt said. “The pricing will ultimately be reflective of what we’re required to cover.”

As proof positive that even this insurer is revising its prediction downward, much less all insurers.

The Schaef on May 2, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Hey schaef, could you provide us all with the link to the gov’t quote re: that 40% number?

I can’t serm to find any such quote myself.

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 5:58 PM

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/02/gops_comically_inept_obamcare_delusion_why_theyre_so_sad_about_the_enrollment_numbers/

Let’s run a quick thought experiment. The Department of Health and Human Services releases a report claiming that 99.9 percent of all people who signed up for private health plans through Obamacare had paid their monthly premiums. Let’s say this report provided a state-by-state breakdown of the data that conspicuously omitted a number of states. Let’s also say that some of the largest health insurers participating in Obamacare had already provided estimates that were far lower than 99.9 percent. The White House and Democrats across the country wave the report around as proof positive that not only is Obamacare working, it’s succeeding far beyond their most optimistic projections.

What would happen in this scenario? The conservative press would loudly, and rightly, accuse the Obama administration of cooking the books on Obamacare. Darrell Issa would schedule hearings and subpoena documents. Ted Cruz would call on Kathleen Sebelius to resign again. Louie Gohmert would call for impeachment, and Lindsay Graham would ask about the Benghazi talking points. Any media outlet that mouthed the administration’s line would see its credibility take a huge hit.

This is the situation we find ourselves in now, only the parties and the numbers are flipped. The House GOP this week released a laughably incomplete report claiming that Obamacare premium payments came in at just 67 percent. The report omitted states that aren’t part of the federal marketplace (and even a couple that are), relied upon incomplete data, and put out an estimate that was wildly at variance with those of big health insurers, which put payment rates as high as 90 percent. The report was, in the judgment of ACA sign-up tallyman Charles Gaba, a “big pile of crap.”……….

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Sorry for the lack of quotes, this is from my tablet and copy/paste is clunky.

Yes the administration claimed a goal of 40%. Note the word “goal”, not need. That goal was always a pipe dream. They were never going to get the youth to sign up at almost 200% of their proportion of the population.

But that really doesn’t matter. What matters is whether enough young people signed up to avoid a death spiral scenario. So far the only people still saying such a scenario is possible are conservatives heavily invested in claiming the program has failed.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM

That’s the “one” insurer that i quoted, who happens to be the biggest ocare insurer, and who happens to be the very source if the “double digit premium hikes” from a couple months back.

And every other insurer is singing the same refrain – feel free to look it up on your own time.

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Let’s debunk your idiocy brick by brick.

1) You said ALL INSURERS repeatedly, yet only producted the link to ONE. Thus your claim is a baldface lie.

2) It’s the largest insurer, but only has one million customers, so nearly 90% of the alleged 8 million will be from other insurers

3) From your link: ““We think because we hit the sweet spot” in 2014 rates, “there’ll be less volatility in pricing for our members than there would be for others,” DeVeydt said.” Thus we have to see what the other 90% have to say about it, and it will vary wildly

4) As pointed out earlier, the young people coming to ObamaCare tend to be sicker on average as indicated by the higher prices policies being purchased than normally expected for young people

5) The article NEVER SAID double digit increases won’t happen. He says this:

Jefferies & Co. analyst David Windley asked if WellPoint still expected double-digit 2015 premium increases, which the company previously said could be driven partly by health-law taxes and a smaller “reinsurance” financial safety net for high-cost patients.

“It’s not an easy one to answer because it’s going to vary by market, by product,” DeVeydt said. “The pricing will ultimately be reflective of what we’re required to cover.”

Class dismissed.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Sorry for the lack of quotes, this is from my tablet and copy/paste is clunky.

Yes the administration claimed a goal of 40%. Note the word “goal”, not need. That goal was always a pipe dream. They were never going to get the youth to sign up at almost 200% of their proportion of the population.

But that really doesn’t matter. What matters is whether enough young people signed up to avoid a death spiral scenario. So far the only people still saying such a scenario is possible are conservatives heavily invested in claiming the program has failed.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Sweet comeback, bro.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Hey schaef, could you provide us all with the link to the gov’t quote re: that 40% number?

I can’t serm to find any such quote myself.

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 5:58 PM

What’s the matter, everdiso, I thought you were like some kind og Google-fu master in the presence of all us plebes.

Here’s an article from your heroes at HuffPo:

The White House believes that Obamacare can connect 7 million people to health benefits next year and that 2.7 million of those must be young, healthy adults with low medical costs to offset the expenses of the older and sicker people expected to flock to the health insurance exchanges.

What’s 2.7m / 7m? Or for that matter, 3.1m / 8m? 25%, as you claim?

This is now the second basic math problem presented to you in two threads. Still waiting.

The Schaef on May 2, 2014 at 6:08 PM

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM

A hyperventilating, namecalling mess of an opinion piece written before today’s 28% bombshell.

Yawn.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 6:09 PM

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM

… he posts, while tacitly ignoring the numerous different aspects of the exchange information on which the administration provides no useful information at all, making it not a hypothetical but a reality.

The Schaef on May 2, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Yes the administration claimed a goal of 40%. Note the word “goal”, not need.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Feel free to read the same article I just linked to everdiso a moment ago. Aside from the false claim that the “goal” is not equivalent to their “need”, are you also going to claim that there is no correlation between “must” and “need”?

The Schaef on May 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM

So far the only people still saying such a scenario is possible are conservatives heavily invested in claiming the program has failed.
 
Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM

 
Want to give the free rider question a shot, Tlaloc?
 
Or were you just believing your own spin on the topic?

rogerb on May 2, 2014 at 6:20 PM

… he posts, while tacitly ignoring the numerous different aspects of the exchange information on which the administration provides no useful information at all, making it not a hypothetical but a reality.

The Schaef on May 2, 2014 at 6:10 PM

funny you should say that since of course the DHS report has in fact just come out:

Right here

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Want to give the free rider question a shot, Tlaloc?

Seriously?
You really need me to spell out how it is that compelling people to carry insurance may help the free rider issue?

Um, okay. The free rider issue comes about because we as a people have decided not to allow others to die for lack of emergency care (lack of preventative care is another thing, unfortunately) so anyone can walk into any ER and get emergency care and then leave. They will of course face bill collection but this may fail leading to the costs being shouldered by the hospital, and ultimately everyone else.

The ACA requires people to carry insurance, this gives the hospital someone to bill. Which, you know is kind of the point.

Why you think flaunting your inability to put these two points together is a winning argument for you… I can’t imagine.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Want to give the free rider question a shot, Tlaloc?
 
rogerb on May 2, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Seriously?
You really need me to spell out how it is that compelling people to carry insurance may help the free rider issue?
 
Um, okay. The free rider issue comes about because we as a people have decided not to allow others to die for lack of emergency care (lack of preventative care is another thing, unfortunately) so anyone can walk into any ER and get emergency care and then leave. They will of course face bill collection but this may fail leading to the costs being shouldered by the hospital, and ultimately everyone else.
 
The ACA requires people to carry insurance, this gives the hospital someone to bill. Which, you know is kind of the point.
 
Why you think flaunting your inability to put these two points together is a winning argument for you… I can’t imagine.
 
Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 6:59 PM

 
Care to give my free rider question a shot now?

rogerb on May 2, 2014 at 7:02 PM

but you guys are really close to believing your own spin on the topic (ala 2012).
 
Tlaloc on May 1, 2014 at 12:39 PM

 
Tlaloc, since you’re here, I need your input on something, please…
 
In 2017 the tax/penalty/fine will reach it’s maximum of 2.5% of income.
 
A person making the U.S. average $43K/yr who chooses to continue free-riding will pay $1075 (vs. thousands in premiums and deductibles), and $1075 will barely cover any hospital procedures beyond check in.
 
Hospitals will still be required by law to provide care regardless of insurance coverage or ability to pay.
 
Can you explain how Obamacare does anything to change the free rider problem?
 
Give us specifics, please.
 
rogerb on May 1, 2014 at 1:19 PM

 
That one, remember?

rogerb on May 2, 2014 at 7:04 PM

So you still don’t get it. Gotcha.

One last try and then I give up.

Let’s take your numbers at face value for arguments sake. There’s three problems with your argument:

1) we can see the pattern for sign ups now and the number of people choosing not to enroll has been actually quite small. In the first year alone we have over 8 million signups per the latest numbers (with 30 million projected over the next few years) and the paid rate has been over 80% in all the reports so far (discounting the pathetic “report” by the house republicans a couple days ago which has been fisked extensively at this point). In fact even that number seems to be significantly low compared to the number that pay within the first month or so of coverage.

So one answer is that the free rider issue isn’t really an issue if thee are no free riders

2) you seem to be saying that any amount of free riders is a fatal flaw in the system. I find that amusing since the only system we might enact that wouldn’t have any would be single payer. If you want to go there be my guest.

Contrary your position a small number of free riders is quite manageable. And as above all indications are that the free rider % is going to drop like a rock.

3) the problem with free riders is when they ditch and have no assets to be seized by bill collectors. Anyone making $43k/year is unlikely to be in such a situation. Those poorer than that will be eligible for subsidies to help them get insurance in the first place.

In fact if we look at the whole the only thing encouraging free riders are those red states that refused to back medicare expansion. They might in fact see a continued problem with free riders, but then again they brought it on themselves.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 7:15 PM

funny you should say that since of course the DHS report has in fact just come out:

Right here

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Which says:

CMS does not yet have comprehensive and accurate data about effectuated enrollment (that is,
the number of individuals who have effectuated their enrollment and gained coverage through
payment of the first premium).

Don’t tell me they don’t have this information from the insurers.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 7:16 PM

So you still don’t get it. Gotcha.
 
One last try and then I give up.

 
I’m 100% positive about that. Shame you only want to evangelize and not actually discuss your faith.
 

Let’s take your numbers at face value for arguments sake. There are three problems with your argument:
 
1) we can see the pattern for sign ups now and the number of people choosing not to enroll has been actually quite small. In the first year alone we have over 8 million signups per the latest numbers (with 30 million projected over the next few years) and the paid rate has been over 80% in all the reports so far (discounting the pathetic “report” by the house republicans a couple days ago which has been fisked extensively at this point). In fact even that number seems to be significantly low compared to the number that pay within the first month or so of coverage.
 
So one answer is that the free rider issue isn’t really an issue if thee are no free riders

 
No free riders?
 
I’m sure it’s neat to believe that dinosaurs coexisted with man, but there are higher numbers of uninsured now than there was in 2008:
 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167798/uninsured-rate-continues-fall.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines
 
(Hint: Look at the right side. Now look at the left.)
 
Next?
 

2) you seem to be saying that any amount of free riders is a fatal flaw in the system. I find that amusing since the only system we might enact that wouldn’t have any would be single payer. If you want to go there be my guest.
 
Contrary your position a small number of free riders is quite manageable.

 
Wow. So the entire premise behind Obamacare was false?
 
Again, there were FEWER uninsured in 2008 than there are now, and that lower number was influential enough for Barack Obama to say this about them and the law:
 

“Because the basic theory is, look, everybody here at some point or another is going to need medical care, and you can’t be a free-rider on everybody else,”
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-confident-about-health-care-law-having-its-day-in-supreme-court/

 
Which do you prefer? Those full-of-free-rider low numbers, or today’s no-free-riders higher numbers?
 

And as above all indications are that the free rider % is going to drop like a rock.

 
Do you have a citation for that, or is it obviously just because that bristle cone pine is only 4300 years old?
 

3) the problem with free riders is when they ditch and have no assets to be seized by bill collectors. Anyone making $43k/year is unlikely to be in such a situation. Those poorer than that will be eligible for subsidies to help them get insurance in the first place.

 
Great point. Which they aren’t doing.
 

The number of Georgia applications – 221,604 – was a big jump in two weeks from the 177,668 that completed applications by March 15.
 
Almost all of those policies’ purchasers will receive a federal subsidy to afford the coverage, Hudgens’ office said.
 
The number of Georgians who have applied is still far short of the estimated 650,000who are eligible for subsidies in the health insurance exchange.
 
http://www.georgiahealthnews.com/2014/04/georgia-exchange-applications-hit-220000/#sthash.gRIuiM5p.8f8suq56.dpuf

 
Now, where were we?
 

In fact if we look at the whole the only thing encouraging free riders are those red states that refused to back medicare expansion.

 
Wait, so you want to change the subject to medicare now?
 

They might in fact see a continued problem with free riders, but then again they brought it on themselves.
 
Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 7:15 PM

 
Yes, yes, we know. It’s someone else’s fault. If only those (D)s didn’t have to get the (R) votes to pass Obamacare and could’ve been allowed to write the legislation the way the wanted to, right?
 
Thanks for trying at least. You got farther than most. Shame about the math.
 
FWIW, I’m fine with you wanting to believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I just don’t want that unscientific faith-based approach influencing public policy.

rogerb on May 2, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Don’t tell me they don’t have this information from the insurers.

Okay.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 7:48 PM

rogerb on May 2, 2014 at 7:45 PM

BTW, the small percentage of new Obamacare customers that were previously uninsured are sure to have a higher rate of non-payment or to quit after a month or two, than those that were simply rolling their plan over from a 2013 plan to a piece-of-crap Obamacare plan.

The mystical ‘uninsured’ was the battering ram the progs used to push through the piece-of-crap, and the fact that it’s not fixing that imaginary problem has to be driven home week after week.

slickwillie2001 on May 2, 2014 at 7:50 PM

I’m 100% positive about that. Shame you only want to evangelize and not actually discuss your faith.

People who want to learn but are having trouble I’m happy to help. You seem much more the “refuse to learn no matter what type.”\

That I have little patience for.

I’m sure it’s neat to believe that dinosaurs coexisted with man, but there are higher numbers of uninsured now than there was in 2008

Perfect example- instead of learning something you go out of your way to both make a complete non-sequitur but also to lie by ommission.

Yes the uninsured rate is higher now then 2008.
No that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Since ACA took effect the number of uninsured has dropped precipitously.
The large increase in uninsured was due to the recession and the coupling of insurance with employment. The ACA helps decouple those two.

So…yeah. If you really want to pique my interest enough to educate you you’re going to have to be vastly more honest in your arguments.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

The mystical ‘uninsured’ was the battering ram the progs used to push through the piece-of-crap, and the fact that it’s not fixing that imaginary problem has to be driven home week after week.

slickwillie2001 on May 2, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Neat, except for the part where all indications so far is that it is fixing the problem. Other than taking into account reality your argument is air tight!

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Yes the uninsured rate is higher now then 2008.
No that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 
Those are different free riders?
 
Really?
 

Since ACA took effect the number of uninsured has dropped precipitously.
The large increase in uninsured was due to the recession and the coupling of insurance with employment. The ACA helps decouple those two.

 
So we needed Obamacare to try to get us back to where we were immediately before Obamacare. Gotcha.
 

So…yeah. If you really want to pique my interest enough to educate you you’re going to have to be vastly more honest in your arguments.
 
Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

 
+1
 
May your sky king watch over you as his flaming chariot is chased by the bone god of the moon, or whatever it is your book tells you to believe.

rogerb on May 2, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Tlaloc, I wanted to be sure to tell you congratulations before the thread died. Not some vague and general “you”, btw, but you specifically, Tlaloc.
 
What’s currently happening to grocery budgets of families with small children? You did it.
 
What’s currently happening to middle class education savings? You did it.
 
What’s currently happening to retirement accounts? You did it.
 
What’s currently happening to the wealth average Americans struggled to accumulate and hoped to pass on to their grandkids? You did it.
 
People were fine with their choices until you forced your way into their bedrooms with your coat hanger of healthcare legislation.
 
But those pro-choice folks were wrong, weren’t they? Your beliefs are the only true path to heaven, aren’t they?
 
Congratulations, Tlaloc.

rogerb on May 2, 2014 at 8:30 PM

funny you should say that since of course the DHS report has in fact just come out:

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Apparently it is funny I should say that because, not only does it leave most of the main questions unanswered, I find two differences of significance between this report and the House report you are criticizing:

1). the difference in time periods between the two reports is the difference between April 15 and April 19: four days

2). the House report has data from insurers, whereas the HHS report still does not.

And you consider this corroborating evidence?

The large increase in uninsured was due to the recession and the coupling of insurance with employment. The ACA helps decouple those two.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

You talk about honesty but you act as though people had lost employer-based insurance and moved to the exchanges in the wake of the recession, when the truth is just the opposite: a significant majority of newly insured are employer-insured; a significant majority of Obama enrollees are people who were booted from their individual insurance into the exchanges, and a million people or more have gone from being insured to being uninsured.

So the upshot of all of this, when dealing in net numbers is that you spent two trillion taxpayer dollars to MAYBE move a net one million uninsured into their own insurance, expanded taxpayer-funded Medicaid enrollment, and greatly inflated premiums for the rest of us, so that an adult non-drinking, non-smoking male gets maternity coverage and substance abuse coverage but not dental for 25% more than he paid the previous year.

Something to be proud of, I’m sure /sarc

The Schaef on May 2, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 7:15 PM

ROFLMAO somebody possibly even more ignorant that everdiso. Where does OFA scoop up these ignorant stools?

Do you to tards share a cubicle at OFA?

HumpBot Salvation on May 2, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Neat, except for the part where all indications so far is that it is fixing the problem. Other than taking into account reality your argument is air tight!

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 7:56 PM

You’re clueless fukktard.

HumpBot Salvation on May 2, 2014 at 9:39 PM

But But But…….free condoms!!!!!!!

WryTrvllr on May 2, 2014 at 10:01 PM

I can understand frustration at his single-minded devotion to Obama’s policies, Humpbot, but I think that kind of language doesn’t serve our cause very well.

The Schaef on May 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Let’s debunk your idiocy brick by brick.

sometimes I forget that you guys aren’t actually intentionally obtuse – you simply are caught in a bubble where you don’t have access to relevant information. I have to remind myself to be patient.

1) You said ALL INSURERS repeatedly, yet only producted the link to ONE. Thus your claim is a baldface lie.

heh. your logic is stunning. because I “only” produced one link t the biggest obamacare insurer, the one who was responsible for the entire “skyrocketing premiums” hoopla a couple of months back, now clearly going back against what it said before….then everything I say MUST BE WRONG.

nice. put all the burden of proof on me, none on yourself, and pretend this makes you right.

Does this kind of logic really make you feel better?

but hey, now that I’m not stuck on a tablet, I can link you up to all of them, if you’d like:

Aetna CEO: “Given the general demographics that CMS released yesterday, I’m not alarmed. They’re better than I thought they would have been.”

UnitedHealthGroup: “The size of the overall market is positive”. Consumers’ large interest in “silver” health plans – mid-level insurance plans in which insurers cover 70 percent of the care costs – is another positive sign for the young exchanges. Almost two-thirds of customers selecting health plans through the exchanges have chosen silver plans.

Cigna CEO: “the second wave of people who signed up for Cigna plans via the public exchanges was younger”. Cigna is the latest insurance company telling a concerned Wall Street that they going to be able to manage the first year of risk from newly insured customers.

America’s Health Insurance Plans: 85 percent of people who bought coverage through the marketplaces were paying premiums.

Wellpoint told investors on a conference call that the payup figure was 90 percent

Should I go on?

I’m not joking here – every single insurer has come out in the last week and said that sign ups, payments, and mix are right in line or better than the expectations they based their original premiums on.

The only way you could not be aware of this is if you were completely isolated in an extreme rightwing media bubble.

2) It’s the largest insurer, but only has one million customers, so nearly 90% of the alleged 8 million will be from other insurers

see: above

3) From your link: ““We think because we hit the sweet spot” in 2014 rates, “there’ll be less volatility in pricing for our members than there would be for others,” DeVeydt said.” Thus we have to see what the other 90% have to say about it, and it will vary wildly

you’re joking, right?

4) As pointed out earlier, the young people coming to ObamaCare tend to be sicker on average as indicated by the higher prices policies being purchased than normally expected for young people

another fresh load of baseless dreck.

again, THE INSURERS SAY ENROLLMENTS ARE RIGHT IN LINE WITH THEIR EXPECTATIONS, IN EVERY RESPECT.

5) The article NEVER SAID double digit increases won’t happen. He says this:

Jefferies & Co. analyst David Windley asked if WellPoint still expected double-digit 2015 premium increases, which the company previously said could be driven partly by health-law taxes and a smaller “reinsurance” financial safety net for high-cost patients.

“It’s not an easy one to answer because it’s going to vary by market, by product,” DeVeydt said. “The pricing will ultimately be reflective of what we’re required to cover.”

Class dismissed.

Chuck Schick on May 2, 2014 at 6:04 PM

He spends the entire conference call backing down from his statements from two months ago…and you take his hesitancy to name a precise number there as proof that you are right?

you’re just trolling now, right? you don’t actually believe what you are saying, right?

or do you really take comfort in this kind of ridiculous spin?

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 11:42 PM

I can understand frustration at his single-minded devotion to Obama’s policies, Humpbot, but I think that kind of language doesn’t serve our cause very well.

The Schaef on May 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Despite it, they seem to have the upper hand.

WryTrvllr on May 3, 2014 at 12:04 AM

Lie to me Le-a

Murphy9 on May 3, 2014 at 8:58 AM

18 – 34 is a large group.

How many are covered by parents that were not before in that 28%, the deal for parents to keep paying is better than the COBRA that kids were offered/ are offered at 26.

How many of that 28% had insurance and were covered already, just new in Obamacare due to policy cancellations?

How many are people that are buying insurance, then, for the first time? Can we tell if this number included state medicaid enrolling thru the health connector or is that not part of the number?

Fleuries on May 3, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Stats fail.

Look don’t you think it’s kind of important to know what % of the overall population is 18-34 to know whether 28% is high or low? Yep. So let’s see:

18-34: 73.7 million (23.5%)
see here (from 2012)

Now double check me here but last I checked 28% > 23.5%
so…that means the 18-34 crowd is actually over-represented among obamacare enrollees.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Your error is in the denominator. It’s not 40% of the general population, it’s 40% of the people who are required by the law to sign up. Specifically, this excludes everyone on medicare or medicaid. Take them out of the denominator and you’ll get 40%.

Pythagoras on May 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM

He spends the entire conference call backing down from his statements from two months ago…and you take his hesitancy to name a precise number there as proof that you are right?

you’re just trolling now, right? you don’t actually believe what you are saying, right?

or do you really take comfort in this kind of ridiculous spin?

everdiso on May 2, 2014 at 11:42 PM

To repeat:

1) You’ve said repeatedly that ALL insurers have said price hikes are not coming, but yet only have this one example. Thus you lied

2) He was asked directly if double digit price hikes were coming, and would not give an answer.

Punching through your cultist babbling is like punching wet toilet paper.

Chuck Schick on May 3, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Yes the uninsured rate is higher now then 2008.
No that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Tlaloc on May 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

You just can’t make this stuff up. You Obama cultists are cartoonish.

Chuck Schick on May 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Premature post. Allow me to address each point that seemed like a coherent point:

heh. your logic is stunning. because I “only” produced one link t the biggest obamacare insurer, the one who was responsible for the entire “skyrocketing premiums” hoopla a couple of months back, now clearly going back against what it said before….then everything I say MUST BE WRONG.

Debunked. See above.

nice. put all the burden of proof on me, none on yourself, and pretend this makes you right.

If you make a claim, then yes. You’re sort of expected to back it up. It’s how grownups behave.

Aetna CEO: “Given the general demographics that CMS released yesterday, I’m not alarmed. They’re better than I thought they would have been.”

That’s over 4 months old.

UnitedHealthGroup: “The size of the overall market is positive”. Consumers’ large interest in “silver” health plans – mid-level insurance plans in which insurers cover 70 percent of the care costs – is another positive sign for the young exchanges. Almost two-thirds of customers selecting health plans through the exchanges have chosen silver plans.

Of course buying more expensive insurance is positive for an insurer. That doesn’t mean insurance hikes equal to or larger than pre-ObamacCare aren’t coming.

Cigna CEO: “the second wave of people who signed up for Cigna plans via the public exchanges was younger”. Cigna is the latest insurance company telling a concerned Wall Street that they going to be able to manage the first year of risk from newly insured customers.

The deadline forcing people who historically did not want insurance was the reason. The market overall missed the 40% target by a huge margin according to the White House. So “being able to manage” may mean no death spiral, but it doesn’t mean double digit increases aren’t coming.

America’s Health Insurance Plans: 85 percent of people who bought coverage through the marketplaces were paying premiums.

Wellpoint told investors on a conference call that the payup figure was 90 percent

Even if these 2 examples hold for the market overall, it means 1 million people will bail out. This will drive price hikes on everyone else, especially since the people more likely to bail out on payments will likely be younger. This would be a double whammy on price hikes

Should I go on?

Please do, because I’m having a good time.

again, THE INSURERS SAY ENROLLMENTS ARE RIGHT IN LINE WITH THEIR EXPECTATIONS, IN EVERY RESPECT.

No they didn’t. That’s the silly conclusion you’ve come to from a few easily disproven interpretations of a few insurance executives. None of this disproves price hikes equal to or greater than pre-ObamaCare.

Chuck Schick on May 3, 2014 at 5:19 PM

That is Braveheart level disemboweling. Kudos rogerB, Chuck, The Schaef, and everyone else that smashed their boot-heel of truth into these leftist’s empty skulls.

Murphy9 on May 3, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Your error is in the denominator. It’s not 40% of the general population, it’s 40% of the people who are required by the law to sign up. Specifically, this excludes everyone on medicare or medicaid. Take them out of the denominator and you’ll get 40%.

Pythagoras on May 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM

I missed the age 0-17 group. You have to take those out too.

The 40% is the percentage of sign-ups that need to be 18-34.

Of course, what really matters is the rate increases announced this summer. All of these figures are just leading indicators of that. Once we know the actual rate increases, the figures we’re arguing here will just be back-story.

Pythagoras on May 3, 2014 at 9:52 PM

I had a response planned but Chuck covered it better and in more detail.

The only thing I would add to that is, the article noted that the insurer had been planning a double-digit increase in premiums, or whatever.

We just got a report a couple days ago about how health care spending is on pace to increase 10% over last year. So the one point in the article where they are asked a direct question over whether that premium increase is still in the works, they don’t back off that despite their other statements. And well they should not; if your costs go up 10% and you don’t raise your prices 10%, you’re going to end up in a hole.

The Schaef on May 3, 2014 at 10:00 PM