Insurers: 80-90% of ObamaCare enrollees are paying their premiums, not 67% like that House committee said

posted at 12:41 pm on May 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

If you read this post last week, you already know what accounts for the discrepancy. The committee took a snapshot on April 15th of new enrollees who hadn’t paid their first premium yet and found a payment rate of just 67 percent, well below the 80 percent figure that had been kicked around for months in the media. One minor problem, though: Because enrollment ended just a few weeks before, on March 31st, the snapshot on April 15th included people who had signed up just before the deadline but hadn’t even received their first bill from the insurance company yet. There are a lot of people like that out there; remember, there was an enormous spike in sign-ups in the days leading up to 3/31 as people tried to get coverage before the door was shut. Long story short, not all of the 33 percent who hadn’t paid yet on 4/15 were deadbeats past their due date. A great many of them were prepared to pay on time but were simply waiting for the bill to come due. Which means, as feared, the big “67 percent” bombshell just blew up in the committee’s face.

But wait, you say. The committee’s numbers were based on information they got from insurers. How can insurers now be claiming 80-90 percent payment when they told the committee it was 67 percent? Simple, says National Journal:

But this week, in written testimony to the same committee, insurers say the 67 percent figure was premature—and that they warned the committee not to draw sweeping conclusions from the information it requested

Wellpoint, the largest insurer in the Obamacare exchanges, said the payment rate is closer to 90 percent among people who reached their first payment deadline. The company has given investors the same estimate.

Health Care Service Corp., which administers Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in several states, told the committee the same thing: Of plans that have reached their payment deadlines, about 80 percent to 90 percent are paid enrollments…

“As outlined in our prior submissions to the Subcommittee, these are dynamic figures and do not reflect final enrollment numbers, as some enrollees have not yet reached their payment,” Aetna said in written testimony for a Wednesday hearing on the health care law and the insurance industry.

The committee did mention in its press release announcing the 67 percent figure that they’d be updating their numbers on May 20 because “many insurers have reported that individuals will still have time to pay their first month’s premium.” But if they had reason to believe that insurers would end up meeting expectations — i.e. 80 percent payment or higher — when all is said and done, why put out a release touting the lower number in the first place? Just wait a few weeks until the final numbers are in and issue a release then.

Two theories for why the committee rushed this out. Theory one: Stupidity. If and when the final payment numbers are released and it’s confirmed that 10-20 percent of new enrollees, a.k.a. 800,000 to 1.6 million people, will be tossed from the rolls, the White House now has some handy spin. “Once again Republicans underestimated ObamaCare,” they’ll say. “They thought we’d top out at 67 percent payment and we made it to 80 percent. Another victory!” Always a bad idea to lower expectations for your opponent. Theory two: Cynicism. Maybe the committee suspects (correctly) that most people don’t follow the news consistently but get it in bits and pieces at irregular times, especially when it comes to a subject as complex and long-running as ObamaCare. As such, they may have decided to float the 67 percent figure knowing/assuming it was bogus but confident that some low-information voters would notice it and conclude that O-Care was underperforming in yet another metric. Some of those voters will miss today’s news and the White House crowing to come about the correct figure and remain convinced that fully a third of new enrollees haven’t paid.

Which theory is correct? While you ponder that, via the Standard, here’s a reminder that there are still plenty of bad metrics in ObamaCare worth highlighting.


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

..Insurers now supporting ObamaCare reminds me of another supporter..

Quetzal on May 7, 2014 at 11:35 PM

Tlaloc on May 7, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Yes, my question is unimportant because it’s inconvenient for you… or is it simply because liberals say so… I forget which.

The Democratic Party led by the President lied repeatedly (its impact on the deficit and the overall economy, the underlying cost, the cost to the consumer, the ability to keep your plan, the ability to keep your doctor, the lowering of premiums, the religious organization exemption…. and on and on and on and on) to pass a $hit sandwich of a law and failed miserably implementing it. The numbers will never be good because they are only the tip of the iceberg. The underlying problems with Obamacare are numerous — so numerous, in fact, that the President has had to arbitrarily and unilaterally alter the law so many times before it was even fully implemented that we’ve lost count.

But please, continue playing word games out here and implying those who see this whole circus side show clearly are offering only items you deem “unimportant.”

I love the summer, but November cannot come soon enough…

dpduq on May 8, 2014 at 12:03 AM

Just FYI, you’re ignoring the previously uninsured who obtained health insurance due to either (i) expanded Medicaid coverage, or (ii) incentives createdby the individual mandate. In fact, the RAND study you cite states that “of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013,14.5 million gained coverage [in 2014], but 5.2 million lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the uninsured rate from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.”

Thanks for the link.

righty45 on May 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM

I think the typo (fixed in bold) caused some confusion.

righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 12:11 AM

So it looks like the math works. Thanks for your help, righty45.

rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Happy to help.

To recap, roger a few hours ago;

3,120,000 previously uninsured now insured under Obamacare.

Only three million people.

rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Roger now:

5.9 million new medicaid + 3 million previously uninsured = 8.9 million newly covered

righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM

righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM

He’s separating them to illustrate the silliness of ObamaCare’s inflated numbers. Medicaid cannot by any stretch of the imagination be equated with health insurance. It’s not even what you guys call junk insurance. It’s garbage.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2014 at 12:33 AM

Yes, my question is unimportant because it’s inconvenient for you… or is it simply because liberals say so… I forget which.

It’s unimportant because… it’s unimportant. What matter’s is whether the number of uninsured is going down. How many people who got insurance through the PPACA already had insurance is only useful if it helps answer the preceding question.

Except we have an answer to the big question which leaves yours a pointless distraction.

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 2:43 AM

He’s separating them to illustrate the silliness of ObamaCare’s inflated numbers. Medicaid cannot by any stretch of the imagination be equated with health insurance. It’s not even what you guys call junk insurance. It’s garbage.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2014 at 12:33 AM

Strangely enough the people who use quite like it:
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8339-f.pdf

(page4)

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 2:49 AM

So no intelligent person would believe any claims made by the administration? You’re beginning to sound reasonable all of a sudden, though not in the way you expected.

You’re bizarrely binary. There’s a difference between learning to ignore hype and ignoring everything.

Yeah, I know you’re saying it “again”. This is like the 50th time you’ve said it “again”. But you’re the only person even pretending that statistic is somehow relevant to the amount of health care utilized by each age group.

Maybe I keep repeating it so at some point you’ll actually get it. And we were never discussing the amount of health care used by each group.

The topic, based on your post, is that Republicans don’t get more votes because they say mean things about people.

Amazingly you have failed to follow the topic of conversation immediately after I just explained to you the topic of conversation. let’s try again- the topic was the GOP losing minorities and women. You made a nonsensical statement, I pointed it out and tried to get you to connect to the topic and you failed again.

Maybe this time you’d like to actually approach coherence?

Okay, so now you’re confirming that the administration considered this a necessity, based on the information provided to them. In essence, confirming that you are being dishonest about their treatment of the number.

Are you physically incapable of getting even one argument right? It’s like you’re arguing with the voices in your head. I said it was a goal, not a necessity and you respond with “so you admit it was a necessity!”

I know english is kind of difficult language but I’m going to have to insist you make some effort to use it correctly.

Seriously? You’re going to sit there and say that people consuming health care plays no role in the cost of health care?

Man that would be silly if we had been talking about the cost of health care. Of course we weren’t, we were talking about the proportion of people with health insurance, but I’ll say this for you, you’re consistent!

I wouldn’t call a net enrollment of one million uninsured into the exchanges a massive victory for the ACA, when it was written ostensibly to solve a 40-odd-million-person problem.

That wouldn’t be much. Of course you’re only off by an order of magnitude according to RAND, and their number may be underselling the effect given when the study was done.

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 3:02 AM

Tlaloc, keep worrying about this unimportant issue. Obamacare is economically unsustainable. Rates are going to skyrocket next year, and the employer mandate is going to dampen economic growth. It will be sad to watch what your side is going to do to the American people.

blink on May 8, 2014 at 2:56 AM

Man, here I was listening to the isurance industry people and the thinktank people all say a deathspiral is now not possible. Good think you came along to give me the truth random anonymous internet poster who makes assertions without corroborating evidence!

That’s a source I can trust.

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 3:04 AM

Tlaloc, keep worrying about this unimportant issue. Obamacare is economically unsustainable. Rates are going to skyrocket next year, and the employer mandate is going to dampen economic growth. It will be sad to watch what your side is going to do to the American people.

blink on May 8, 2014 at 2:56 AM

People like Tlaloc don’t even understand what the concept means.

non-nonpartisan on May 8, 2014 at 3:31 AM

80-90% of what? Real enrollments actually received by the insurance companies? Or 80-90% of that bogus enrollment number Obama has been using that includes duplicate attempts to sign up?

forest on May 8, 2014 at 6:23 AM

..Insurers now supporting ObamaCare reminds me of another supporter..

Quetzal on May 7, 2014 at 11:35 PM

It reminds me of a house hearing (years ago now) about repealing the 1.6 gallon toilet mandate. The toilet manufactures were all in favor of keeping the mandate… Reason competition. If the mandate were lifted… who knows what kind of toilet innovation some competitor might come up with. Sycophants all!

Dasher on May 8, 2014 at 7:33 AM

80-90% of people that enrolled as subsidized got their premiums paid by the government. Adverse selection will bring the underwriting loss ratio on this population way over acceptable levels. Then the law’s corridor will kick in and the insurance companies will demand payment again from the government.

The only ones really paying are healthy men and women gainfully employed getting their wages and property confiscated for a utopian dream. Next up global climate change…how much money is left to tackle that one? How much money does the socialist government want? – answer: the rest.

Connecticut on May 8, 2014 at 7:35 AM

People like Tlaloc don’t even understand what the concept means.

non-nonpartisan on May 8, 2014 at 3:31 AM

Even if they did, it wouldn’t matter. It was never about sustainability or providing health insurance for those who can’t afford it. From the very first time it was suggested, it’s been about control. Liberals cannot countenance the average person being left to their own devices.

CurtZHP on May 8, 2014 at 7:58 AM

for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million.

So it looks like the math works. Thanks for your help, righty45.
 
rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Happy to help.

To recap, roger a few hours ago;
 

3,120,000 previously uninsured now insured under Obamacare.

Only three million people.
 
rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Roger now:

5.9 million new medicaid + 3 million previously uninsured = 8.9 million newly covered

 
righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM

 
You’re a bright guy, so I’m guessing you’re not really confused by the language but driven more by a belief that the earth is only 6000 years old. You do understand the differences between the words in bold, correct?
 
If you want to make the discussion about new Medicaid recipients
 
recipients
 
we certainly can, but we’re discussing the 80-90% of paid
 
paid
 
insurance enrollees. I thought that was pretty clear, and I even mentioned the 5.9M Medicaid recipients
 
recipients
 
by name as you pointed out (thanks) when showing the math, so I definitely wasn’t avoiding their presence.
 
Regardless, it’s always fun to see the faithful shaking the holy book and saying “See! See! The oldest tree is only 4000 years old!” to the heretics and non-believers instead of examining the uncomfortable data regarding paying
 
paying
 
insurance enrollees we’re actually discussing.
 

3,120,000 previously uninsured now insured under Obamacare.
 
Only three million people.
 
rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM

rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 8:05 AM

And since we’re all here
 

Just FYI, you’re ignoring the previously uninsured… In fact, the RAND study you cite states that “of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013,14.5 million gained coverage [in 2014]..

righty45 on May 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM

I think the typo (fixed in bold) caused some confusion.

righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 12:11 AM

 
1.76T / 14.5M “gained coverage” = $121,379 per person
 
$121,379 / 79 years average lifespan per person = $1536/yr
 
$1536 per year / 12 months per year = $128
 
$128
 
The nearly $1.76 trillion we’re spending over the next ten years on Obamacare would’ve bought $128 of catastrophic insurance each month for every one of the “gained coverage”s ENTIRE LIVES.
 
$128/month in insurance from birth to death, for the next 80 years, with little additional impact on the rest of our budgets.

rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 8:26 AM

Exactly, all.

Tlaloc is a typical liberal; the child ignores any evidence it doesn’t like, such as how its leaders call black people and minorities who vote against Obama traitors and Uncle Toms and calls for them to be lynched and raped.

Keep in mind the Obama Party and its children like Tlaloc never ask Ibama for facts or challenge his assertions. Indeed, the Obama Party insists that any requirement for facts or evidence of Obama and the Obama Party means you are a racist.

The point of Obamacare is simple — enslavement to the government. This is why Pelosi and Obama and the Obama Party are pushing quitting work and going on welfare.

And then, once you are dependent on it, the Obama Party then simply cuts your welfare unless you obey them. They make you complicit in the crime, knowing that you have no choice but to do their bidding.

That is why white liberals adamantly oppose any type of welfare restrictions or limitations. Welfare is the Obama Party’s slavery system, and the only source of their votes.

northdallasthirty on May 8, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Come to think of it, to get the most accurate data out there we should probably subtract that 5M since they already had coverage, shouldn’t we?
 
So 1.76T/ (14.5 – 5) = $185,263 per person
 
That comes out to $2345 per person per year, which is $195/month.
 
$195/month for insurance from birth to death for 80 years for that 9.5M people for the cost of ten years of Obamacare*

rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 8:45 AM

*Which doesn’t include any of the additional costs families pay for increased rates, deductibles, RX costs, etc., of course.
 
I’d love to see those numbers.

rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 8:45 AM

Strangely enough the people who use quite like it:
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8339-f.pdf

(page4)

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 2:49 AM

Wow… a poll from an advocacy group for free health care says… people like free healthcare.

Somebody is playing for keeps now!

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2014 at 9:25 AM

You’re bizarrely binary. There’s a difference between learning to ignore hype and ignoring everything.

Yes, apparently the difference is whatever is convenient for you. Didn’t hit that target number? Nah, they just made that up. Can’t keep your plan? Why would anyone expect to keep anything? A bunch of newly insured coming from employer plans? You need to focus on what’s REALLY important in determining the law’s success: whether there is a shift in the number of uninsured, and totally not whether the law itself prompted those changes.

See how suddenly everything becomes hype? You’re making a distinction without a difference.

Maybe I keep repeating it so at some point you’ll actually get it.

I get it. I got it the first time. It wasn’t a complicated point. It still is not a correct assessment. It never was.

the topic was the GOP losing minorities and women.

To which your response was: because they supposedly say mean things about people. Repeating yourself doesn’t change the fact that you’re telling me to catch up when you’re the one who’s two steps behind on this.

I said it was a goal, not a necessity and you respond with “so you admit it was a necessity!”

Because the CBO is not in the business of pipe-dreaming. If the CBO said “25%” and the administration said, “yeah, but let’s go for 40″, you’d have a point. But they didn’t. So you don’t.

Of course you’re only off by an order of magnitude according to RAND

No, I wouldn’t. “According to RAND”, the number of uninsured going into the exchanges at the time of the study was 1.4 million, which I generously rounded up to 2. “According to RAND”, about a million persons went from having some kind of insurance to no kind of insurance over the same period, which I generously didn’t round up at all.

So when I said a net gain of a million uninsured into the exchanges, if anything I probably was giving too much credit to the number of sign-ups in the final weekend, and none to the number of uninsured. In other words, I gave you cushion and it’s still a million.

The Schaef on May 8, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Man, here I was listening to the isurance industry people and the thinktank people all say a deathspiral is now not possible. Good think you came along to give me the truth random anonymous internet poster who makes assertions without corroborating evidence!

That’s a source I can trust.

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 3:04 AM

I have to hand it to liberals. You guys are masters of moving the bar.

The success criteria of ObamaCare is now that it didn’t implode. It is no longer:

* health insurance dropping $2500 per person (only evidence to the contrary)
* the unsustainable health care spending curve bending downward (It’s gone up by the worst in 35 years)
* being able to keep you policy (Polifact’s lie of the year)
* being able to keep your doctor

And on and on and on.

BTW, Tlaloc – any idea where they’re planning on cutting that $70 billion a year from Medicare to pay for all this? I ask because every single year since 1997 Congress votes from both sides to punt the reimbursement cuts to doctors to the next year:

President Barack Obama Tuesday signed into law legislation to give doctors temporary relief from a flawed Medicare payment formula that threatened them with a 24 percent cut in their fees.

A 64-35 Senate vote Monday cleared the measure through Congress.

The $21 billion bill would stave off a 24 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors for a year and extend dozens of other expiring health care provisions, such as higher payment rates for rural hospitals. The legislation is paid for by cuts to health care providers, but fully half of the cuts won’t kick in for 10 years.

Link

So if they can’t stomach $21 billion in cuts, how the hell are they going to cut an additional $70 billion on top of it?

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Two theories for why the committee rushed this out…
Theory one: Stupidity….Theory two: Cynicism.
-Allahpundit

Seems Allah is having a a full RINO day…dishing out some harsh reality medicine.

Next thing he’ll be explaining to the ‘death panel’ crowd how health care reform in Massachusetts has resulted in lowering the death rate.
‘Life panel’ maybe?

We seem to be well on our way a ‘repeal the repeal agenda’ movement…

verbaluce on May 8, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Seems Allah is having a a full RINO day…dishing out some harsh reality medicine.

Next thing he’ll be explaining to the ‘death panel’ crowd how health care reform in Massachusetts has resulted in lowering the death rate.
‘Life panel’ maybe?

We seem to be well on our way a ‘repeal the repeal agenda’ movement…

verbaluce on May 8, 2014 at 9:57 AM

They also have the most expensive health insurance of all 50 states for that little 2.9% drop.

ObamaCare is fiscally unsustainable – just like medicare, medicaid, social security and welfare. So enjoy it while it lasts.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Just wondering if these *payments* are actually from the government (read: taxpayer) in the form of subsidies. I have read the subsidies are pretty hefty in a large majority of applicants. This whole thing is so convoluted. It boggles the mind. The road to ruin is getting pretty short.

kawfytawk on May 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM

The tap dancing while releasing various numbers should be the talking point:

Accurate data was not available because:
1) Taking over such a significant portion of the private economy by the government was planned and executed in such a slipshod manner, that milestones were not accurately set, nor met, implementation was plagued with security and bandwidth issues–requiring dealing with a ‘dynamic’ state.
2) The 67% figure can easily be supported by the ‘rushed’ figures to the House, especially since duplicate enrollees hadn’t yet been fully identified.

This latest move should have been expected by opponents of O-care, and amounts to a nothing-burger.

socalcon on May 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Wow, what a quiet thread. Math is neat, isn’t it?
 
BTW, this is definitely my favorite part of the thread.
 

The report has all the numbers the white house has released. If you want something they don’t have then you’re out of luck.
 
Tlaloc on May 7, 2014 at 3:55 PM

 
Fair enough. I guess we’ll stick with 61% were previously ensured prior to Obamacare, then.
 
rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 3:58 PM

 
You are reading too much into it. Had previous coverage does not mean covered at the time they got obamacare, it only means at *some* point in the past this person had insurance. It might have been decades ago.
 
Tlaloc on May 7, 2014 at 4:04 PM

 
I know you think the earth is only 6000 years old, but you really should read the data you link to.
 
rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 4:25 PM

 

The Rand study specifically tracked the change in insured persons during the enrollment period from September 2013 to the end of March.
 
In other words, a person having insurance, or not, was a boolean value from the time of the study’s opening in September 2013, and not an indicator of whether they EVER had coverage at ANY point prior to the exchange enrollment period.
 
The Schaef on May 7, 2014 at 4:33 PM

 
And then any actual links, data, and math (not to mention the conversation re:previously insured) were abandoned for the fallback you’re-all-racists-who-hate-women-,-racists approach
 

A) you aren’t following the conversation very well, the topic was the GOp having troubles relating to minorities and women. What do any of the things on your list have to do with that? Right…nothing.
 
Tlaloc on May 7, 2014 at 10:04 PM

 
We joke about it a lot, but watching it happen in real time is hilarious.

rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Next thing he’ll be explaining to the ‘death panel’ crowd how health care reform in Massachusetts has resulted in lowering the death rate.

verbaloon on May 8, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Funny how the O’bamacare Boosters who did that “study” went into it with preconceived notions:

“Our study’s objective was to examine the changes in mortality associated with the Massachusetts reform,” the researchers wrote. “We hypothesized that the reform reduced mortality, particularly from causes potentially treatable with timely care (such as cardiovascular disease, infections, and cancer), and that larger changes among groups likely to benefit from the law – previously uninsured adults and those with higher prereform mortality rates.”

It’s also telling that they totally ignored an entire year in their calculations. And that the majority of the drop in deaths came in less than 1/3 of all of the counties in MA.

But your primary problem? One single “study” doesn’t make the claim Settled Science. That’s like claiming that Global Warming exists solely based on a single piece of data.

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 8, 2014 at 12:34 PM

3,120,000 previously uninsured now insured under Obamacare.

Only three million people.

rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM

 
Silly me. I forgot that only 80-90% have paid.
 
3.12 * 0.8 = 2.5M
 
3.12 * 0.9 = 2.8M
 
So Obamacare insured somewhere between 2,500,000 and 2,800,000 people. What’s the US population again, 314,000,000?
 
2,800,000 / 314,000,000 = 0.89
 
So best-case scenario has Obamacare responsible for insuring 9/10ths of 1% of the U.S. population? Wow.
 
Hooray!

rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 1:12 PM

If you want to make the discussion about new Medicaid recipients we certainly can, but we’re discussing the 80-90% of paid
paid insurance enrollees.
rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 8:05 AM

I loathe to get in the weeds with you because you will just squirm and squirm until this thread dies, but one last time…

Now you’re drawing that distinction (between Medicaid beneficiaries and exchange enrollees who were previously uninsured) because I explained why you’re wrong. But before I did that, you were arguing that Obamacare led to “only” a 3 million person increase in health insurance coverage out of 46 million uninsured individuals. See below.

We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children. (Applause.) We are not a nation that lets hardworking families go without coverage, or turns its back on those in need. We’re a nation that cares for its citizens. We look out for one another. That’s what makes us the United States of America. We need to get this done. (Applause.)

- President Obama, June 2009 . . .

3,120,000 previously uninsured now insured under Obamacare.

Only three million people.

rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM

As I pointed out, that’s incorrect (by a factor of three) based on the very RAND study you cited, as Obamacare has caused a 9 million increase in insured individuals. And it do so in a single year.

righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

But before I did that, you were arguing that Obamacare led to “only” a 3 million person increase in health insurance coverage out of 46 million uninsured individuals.

righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Well, if the argument for Obamacare is that it’s going to lower the cost of health care for everyone, and 2/3 of the “newly-insured” are having their “health care coverage” provided by the state, at taxpayer expense, then he’s right on the details (these persons do not have traditional health insurance) and on the merits (they are consuming some amount of health care without paying into the system, thus negatively impacting the cost per capita).

The Schaef on May 8, 2014 at 3:22 PM

8 million Obamacare enrollments

3,120,000 previously uninsured now insured under Obamacare.

Only three million people.

rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Just FYI, you’re ignoring the previously insured who obtained health insurance due to either (i) expanded Medicaid coverage…

righty45 on May 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM

If you want to make the discussion about new Medicaid recipients we certainly can, but we’re discussing the 80-90% of paid paid insurance enrollees.
 
rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 8:05 AM

 
Now you’re drawing that distinction (between Medicaid beneficiaries and exchange enrollees who were previously uninsured) because I explained why you’re wrong.
 
righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

 
That’s a neat exchange, isn’t it?
 
Do you prefer a Tardis or a DeLorean, righty45?

rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Well, if the argument for Obamacare is that it’s going to lower the cost of health care for everyone,

Part of the argument for Obamacare is that it will lower the cost of health care for everyone, yes. Or at least help slow the rate at which health care costs have been increasing. So far, that goal has been accomplished.

Another part of the argument for Obamacare is that – through the exchanges, the expansion of Medicaid coverage, and the incentives created by the individual mandate – it will also expand health insurance coverage. As rogerb and myself have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, so far, that goal has been accomplished as well.

and 2/3 of the “newly-insured” are having their “health care coverage” provided by the state, at taxpayer expense, then he’s right on the details (these persons do not have traditional health insurance)

So Medicaid beneficiaries do not count as additional covered individuals because….you don’t like Medicaid? Or because Medicaid is not “traditional” (even though it has been around since a decade or two after employer-sponsored coverage became ubiquitous)? I do not think that is much of an argument.

and on the merits (they are consuming some amount of health care without paying into the system, thus negatively impacting the cost per capita).

The Schaef on May 8, 2014 at 3:22 PM

I don’t think that’s right, though I would love to see some analysis either way. If they were entirely uninsured, they would still receive costly emergency room treatment, as state and federal laws require doctors and hospitals to provide such care regardless of ability to pay. And you and I would still bear that cost in the form of higher premiums.

righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Or at least help slow the rate at which health care costs have been increasing.

That IS NOT what was claimed.

So far, that goal has been accomplished.

This is false. Rate of growth has been slowing for a decade, and the CBO released a report showing that the ACA has a net effect of increasing total cost.

it will also expand health insurance coverage.

And all indications is that the net effect on such is pretty minimal. It threw five million individuals off their existing insurance, and a million of those wound up with no insurance at all. The only large number that can genuinely be trumpeted is more Medicaid signups, meaning more people using taxpayer money and not paying into the system.

So Medicaid beneficiaries do not count as additional covered individuals because….you don’t like Medicaid?

You quoted and responded to a later part of my post that addresses this directly, so it’s dishonest to pretend you don’t understand this argument.

I don’t think that’s right

You don’t think that people receiving benefits without paying for them has a cost?

If they were entirely uninsured, they would still receive costly emergency room treatment

I keep hearing this argument, and yet I was off insurance for a period of two years and never once utilized the emergency room. The claim that people will go there all the time for everything and never pay their own doctor in cash is baffling to say the least.

And you and I would still bear that cost in the form of higher premiums.

Except ACA also negatively impacted premiums, which is why they had to use subsidies to hide the real cost from the public. They literally broke their own website for two months because it was more important for them to make sure you didn’t know the raw price of the plans, versus what you would pay after subsidies (which is just the government spending your own money for you anyway).

The Schaef on May 8, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Strangely enough the people who use quite like it:
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8339-f.pdf

(page4)

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 2:49 AM

Strangely enough, those that I’ve had as clients didn’t like it.

In fact, as part of a Government-sponsored program/grant to get signups for this program, I (and others) tried and tried to talk them into enrolling and using it back in the late 90′s: CHIP.

The moms said it was just too much trouble each month for them to jump through all the hoops for the measly $10 help they got each month. Our project failed. Have no idea of what that program is like now. But, our whole grant fell through as no one wanted it. The workers are now scattered throughout other programs such as food banks, etc..

avagreen on May 8, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Medicaid is like having health insurance like living in a Homeless Shelter is like having a mortgage.

slickwillie2001 on May 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM

…As rogerb and myself have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, so far, that goal has been accomplished as well.

 
+1. Very much like increasing the number of people on food stamps and extending unemployment benefits.
 
Only 2.8 million “previously uninsured” are actually semi-paying for their own insurance, though. Sorry you’re so math-averse, but that’s the actual number. No matter how much you want it to be something else, it remains 2.8 million.
 
That was Obamacare’s impact on the uninsured purchasing insurance.
 
2.8 million.
 

and 2/3 of the “newly-insured” are having their “health care coverage” provided by the state, at taxpayer expense, then he’s right on the details (these persons do not have traditional health insurance)

 
So Medicaid beneficiaries do not count as additional covered individuals because….you don’t like Medicaid? Or because Medicaid is not “traditional” (even though it has been around since a decade or two after employer-sponsored coverage became ubiquitous)? I do not think that is much of an argument.
 
righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 5:37 PM

 
You’re interchanging words and concepts again. I’m shocked it so hard for you to get. Is anyone else having this problem, or is it just the faithful?
 
Heck, even President Obama didn’t try to tie the Medicaid beneficiaries with the people who were working to pay their bills:
 

The first open enrollment period under this law ended a little over two weeks ago. And as more data comes in, we now know that the number of Americans who’ve signed up for private insurance in the marketplaces has grown to 8 million people — 8 million people…

We have 8 million people signed up through the exchanges. That doesn’t include the 3 million young people who are able to stay on their parents’ plan. It doesn’t include the 3 million people who benefited from expansions to Medicaid.
 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/17/press-conference-president-41714

 
8 million. Gosh, do you think it was because he “didn’t like Medicaid” or didn’t think it was “traditional”?
 
No, it was because they’re different things. Medicaid is for the poor. Medicaid is welfare. Increased Medicaid beneficiaries is not an indicator of thriving and healthy economy.
 

The Affordable Care Act of 2010, signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010, creates a national Medicaid minimum eligibility level of 133% of the federal poverty level ($29,700 for a family of four in 2011)
 
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Eligibility/Eligibility.html

 
How many was it that got Medicaid “coverage”, btw? Six million, right? Wow. That’s only two million less than the insurance enrollment, and over twice the 2.8 million “previously uninsured”.
 
Well, the 2.8 million that decided to pay.

rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 7:26 PM

rogerb, you don’t get enough credit for what you do on here. Great job putting the numbers in front of righty45 and forcing her to admit that Obamacare’s fake goals are only being met via socialism. And thanks for shutting Tlaloc down completely.

blink on May 8, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Haha aw, just let him be, blink. I know he’s been floundering for awhile now, but it actually probably makes him feel worse if you try to step in and comfort him.

righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 8:04 PM

rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 7:26 PM

There’s a keeper for you here.

slickwillie2001 on May 8, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Haha aw, just let him be, blink. I know he’s been floundering for awhile now, but it actually probably makes him feel worse if you try to step in and comfort him.

righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Weak.

avagreen on May 8, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Here’s a real-world example of Obamacare working. My daughter, a hairdresser, was laid off in August 2013. She was able to keep her health insurance (important since she has fibromyalgia and asthma) through Cobra. But it cost a little over $480 per month. She was able to get an Obamacare plan with slightly better coverage – and her same doctors – at a little under $175 per month. It would have been cheaper but since she had only worked 7.5 months in 2013 she hadn’t earned enough to be eligible for a subsidy. And since our Governor was one of the doofuses who wouldn’t accept expanded Medicaid she didn’t qualify for that either. Thank goodness for Obamacare.

independentvoice on May 9, 2014 at 12:27 AM

The lamer the troll, the more obvious the username

Thanks “independentvoice”, here’s a far bigger example about how ObamaCare isn’t working:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/04/07/how-much-have-health-plan-premiums-spiked-over-the-last-four-years-of-obamacares-rollout-heres-the-data/

Chuck Schick on May 9, 2014 at 12:52 AM

righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 5:37 PM

 
+1. Very much like increasing the number of people on food stamps and extending unemployment benefits.
 

We have 8 million people signed up through the exchanges. That doesn’t include the 3 million young people who are able to stay on their parents’ plan. It doesn’t include the 3 million people who benefited from expansions to Medicaid.
 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/17/press-conference-president-41714

 
8 million. Gosh, do you think it was because he “didn’t like Medicaid” or didn’t think it was “traditional”?
 
No, it was because they’re different things. Medicaid is for the poor. Medicaid is welfare. Increased Medicaid beneficiaries is not an indicator of thriving and healthy economy.

 

The Affordable Care Act of 2010, signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010, creates a national Medicaid minimum eligibility level of 133% of the federal poverty level ($29,700 for a family of four in 2011)
 
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Eligibility/Eligibility.html

 
How many was it that got Medicaid “coverage”, btw? Six million, right? Wow. That’s only two million less than the insurance enrollment, and over twice the 2.8 million “previously uninsured”.
 
Well, the 2.8 million that decided to pay.
 
rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 7:26 PM

 
It’s weird that this wasn’t responded to, but something something floundering something.
 
Come to think of it, the time travel one
 

rogerb on May 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Now you’re drawing that distinction (between Medicaid beneficiaries and exchange enrollees who were previously uninsured) because I explained why you’re wrong.
 
righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

 
wasn’t, either. That one was a lot of fun, too.
 
Oh well. Bristle cone pines are only 4300 years old, aren’t they righty45?

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 6:26 AM

Here’s a real-world example of Obamacare working. My daughter, a hairdresser, was laid off in August 2013. She was able to keep her health insurance (important since she has fibromyalgia and asthma) through Cobra. But it cost a little over $480 per month. She was able to get an Obamacare plan with slightly better coverage – and her same doctors – at a little under $175 per month. It would have been cheaper but since she had only worked 7.5 months in 2013 she hadn’t earned enough to be eligible for a subsidy. And since our Governor was one of the doofuses who wouldn’t accept expanded Medicaid she didn’t qualify for that either. Thank goodness for Obamacare.
 
independentvoice on May 9, 2014 at 12:27 AM

 
It’s a shame the economy is still floundering so badly that she couldn’t keep her job/insurance, but I’m glad the lower monthly payments work better for her.
 
What’s the difference in her past and present deductibles, btw?

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 6:31 AM

She was able to keep her health insurance (important since she has fibromyalgia and asthma) through Cobra. But it cost a little over $480 per month. She was able to get an Obamacare plan with slightly better coverage – and her same doctors – at a little under $175 per month. It would have been cheaper but since she had only worked 7.5 months in 2013 she hadn’t earned enough to be eligible for a subsidy. And since our Governor was one of the doofuses who wouldn’t accept expanded Medicaid she didn’t qualify for that either. Thank goodness for Obamacare.
 
independentvoice on May 9, 2014 at 12:27 AM

 
BTW, I noticed you compared the temporary Cobra rate instead of her previous actual rate.
 
So I guess we need the difference in deductibles and her before she lost her job because of Obama’s economy employed monthly premium, please.

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 8:07 AM

Come to think of it, that really is a near-perfect post. Someone is thankful that Obama saved them from something brought on by Obama.
 
Neat.

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 8:10 AM

Such a quiet thread.

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 11:27 AM

rogerb…

blink on May 8, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Haha aw, just let him be, blink. I know he’s been floundering for awhile now, but it actually probably makes him feel worse if you try to step in and comfort him.
 
righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 8:04 PM

 
righty45, I want to say thanks for your bizarre persistence on pushing the welfare/Medicaid angle. I personally think it’s important to use actual data and not just some belief that the universe was formed in six literal days, and without your posts we wouldn’t have the true Obamacare/Medicaid numbers on the thread.
 
I’ll let Politifact take it from here:
 

The administration’s 6.3 million figure includes a lot of the “churn” in Medicaid that has nothing to do with the new law’s Medicaid expansion, as well as new sign-ups of people who were previously eligible for Medicaid — and thus were not granted “access to health care for the first time because of Medicaid expansion,” in Obama’s words.
 
The actual number is estimated to be between one-seventh and two-fifths of what Obama said it was. We rate the claim False.
 
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-medicaid-expansion-has-brought-h/

 
Turns out a lot of the people were already welfare-eligible but just hadn’t signed up, so Obamacare expanding Medicaid coverage had nothing to do with, how did I hear it put once… Oh, yeah
 

Just FYI, you’re ignoring the previously insured who obtained health insurance due to either (i) expanded Medicaid coverage…
 
righty45 on May 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM

 
Let’s go with two-fifths (40%) of the newly “covered” since it’s the highest and helps your position the most
 
2/5 = 0.4
 
Medicaid was 5.9 million, right?
 
0.4 * 5,900,000 = 2,360,000
 
2,360,000
 
2,360,000 newly-eligible Medicaid
 
Wow.
 
So for Obamacare’s bargain price of $1.76 trillion dollars
($1,760,000,000,000)
we got
 
- 2.36 million people newly-eligible people getting Medicaid, and
 
- 2.8 million previously uninsured people purchasing insurance.

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Anyone have their calculator handy so they can tell us the total number of previously uninsured people Obamacare is responsible for covering? If you’ll just quote this post and fill in the blank for us, please:
 
2.8 million + 2.36 million = __________

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 11:51 AM

So I guess we need the difference in deductibles and her before she lost her job because of Obama’s economy employed monthly premium, please.

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 8:07 AM

By all means, let’s leave the COBRA rate in there. It will help highlight how much of a difference the employer contribution to the premium makes in helping people afford their health care plans.

At my previous job, an Internet startup, the employer offered 80% contribution for the enrollee’s premium. Great! $50 insurance! Problem is, I had three boys (now four), and there was no premium contribution for dependents. $50 for me, $1300 for the family.

I opted to pay my doctors in cash.

The Schaef on May 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM

That’s a very good point re:employer contributions.

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM

2.8 million + 2.36 million = __________

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 11:51 AM

I’m going to go with 5.16, Alex.

But I didn’t subtract the million or so who went from having insurance to being uninsured during the same period, so that number may be a bit off in terms of the net gain.

The Schaef on May 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Should we just say 5 million?

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Benefit of the doubt and what-not, I mean.

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Well, considering the benefit of the doubt that we’re given, particularly when it comes to things like racism, sexism, homophobia, fiscal policy, etc., I guess it’s only fai-

… okay, it’s a measure of grace.

The Schaef on May 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Anyone have their calculator handy so they can tell us the total number of previously uninsured people Obamacare is responsible for covering? If you’ll just quote this post and fill in the blank for us, please:
 
2.8 million + 2.36 million = __________
 
rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 11:51 AM

 
Such a quiet thread.

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 4:14 PM

***TRIGGER WARNING***
 
***MATH AHEAD***
 
I guess we might as well do some more math while we wait:
 

So for Obamacare’s bargain price of $1.76 trillion dollars
($1,760,000,000,000)
we got
 
- 2.36 million people newly-eligible people getting Medicaid, and
 
- 2.8 million previously uninsured people purchasing insurance.
 
rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 11:50 AM

 
2.36M + 2.8M = 5,160,000
 
1,760,000,000,000 / 5,160,000 = 341,085
 
$341,085.
 
Wow. Way, way over a quarter-million dollars each.
 
So Obamacare spent $341,085 to cover each previously uninsured person (and that’s not counting individual expenses felt by the rest of us in the form of increased premiums, RX costs, etc., of course).
 
$341K/person.

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 9:35 PM

I’ll just leave this here in case someone wants to stop back by and pick it up.
 

rogerb on May 8, 2014 at 8:05 AM

 
I loathe to get in the weeds with you because you will just squirm and squirm until this thread dies, but one last time…
 
righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

rogerb on May 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM

I want to again give kudos to Tlaloc and righty45 for posting their links and numbers on Obamacare coverage, humiliating as it must be.
 
To summarize, and with links to the relevant math, etc. before it slips off the front page and dies:

—–

8 million Obamacare insurance enrollees, and 14.5 million “gained coverage” (“gained coverage” adds Medicaid/welfare to the total)
 
14.5 “gained coverage”

—–

Of the 8 million Obamacare insurance enrollees, 61% were insured prior to the ACA’s passage, so:
 
4,880,000 enrollees were insured prior to the ACA

—–

The remaining 39% means 3,120,000 enrollees were insured as a direct result of the ACA Only 90% (best case) paid, so
 
2,808,000 people were insured as a direct result of Obamacare

—–

Medicaid enrollment post-ACA: 5.9 million

60% (best case) of the 5.9M were eligible prior to passage of the ACA and only 40% came from ACA, so
 
2,360,000 were covered by Medicaid as a direct result of Obamacare

—–
 
Best case scenario for total newly-covered as a direct result of Obamacare:
 
2.808M + 2.36M =
 
5,168,000
 

rogerb on May 10, 2014 at 10:36 AM

One last thing just because it’s so funny.
 

Now you’re drawing that distinction (between Medicaid beneficiaries and exchange enrollees who were previously uninsured) because I explained why you’re wrong. But before I did that, you were arguing that Obamacare led to “only” a 3 million person increase in health insurance coverage out of 46 million uninsured individuals. See below.
 
As I pointed out, that’s incorrect (by a factor of three) based on the very RAND study you cited, as Obamacare has caused a 9 million increase in insured individuals. And it do so in a single year.
 
righty45 on May 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

 
Why is that so funny?
 
2.808M + 2.36M = 5,168,000 newly covered as a direct result of Obamacare.
 
Look at the margin of error in the Rand study. It’s highlighted in blue in this image:
 
http://imgur.com/D6CibPi
 
The margin of error is 37%.
 
Thirty-seven percent. That means the 5.168M newly-covered (includes Medicaid) number can be off by 1.9M either way. And here’s where it gets funny.
 
5,168,000 + 1,908,460 = 7,080,160
 
7.1 million newly-covered people, best case scenario (including Medicaid).
 
Only seven million people.
 
Worst case?
 
5,168,000 – 1,908,460 = 3,259,540
 
3.3 million people
 
Hey, guess what that is?
 
Three million people.
 

Now you’re drawing that distinction (between Medicaid beneficiaries and exchange enrollees who were previously uninsured) because I explained why you’re wrong. But before I did that, you were arguing that Obamacare led to “only” a 3 million person increase in health insurance coverage out of 46 million uninsured

 
Potentially only three million total newly-covered, including Medicaid, as a direct result of Obamacare.
 
Per Obama.
 
Math is fun, isn’t it?

rogerb on May 10, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Potentially only three million total newly-covered, including Medicaid, as a direct result of Obamacare.
 
rogerb on May 10, 2014 at 10:57 AM

 
Yikes, I just realized it’s much, much worse. We’re doing worst-case, and I’d given best case in previous posts to help righty45′s position. We’ve got to only account for 80% of the newly-insured enrollees having paid, so that’s 2,496,000 people.

 
And we’ve got to adjust the Medicaid number. Remember this?
 

The actual number is estimated to be between one-seventh and two-fifths of what Obama said it was. We rate the claim False.
 
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-medicaid-expansion-has-brought-h/

 
1/7 = 14%
 
5.9M Medicaid * 0.14 = 826,000
 
Not even a million people enrolled in Medicaid as a result of the ACA.
 
So 2.496M + 0.826M = 3,322,000
 
Yikes. 3.3M newly-covered people, including Medicaid.
 
Don’t forget the 37% margin of error, though.
 
3.3M * 0.37 = 1.221M
 
Worst case scenario?
 
3.3M – 1.221M = 2.079
 
Two million.
 
Obamacare potentially only covered two million uninsured people.

rogerb on May 10, 2014 at 11:13 AM

I just realized this entire thread might’ve been so someone else would do the math for them.

rogerb on May 10, 2014 at 9:23 PM

The thread is still on the front page, so I guess this goes here.
 
I like the part where righty45 admits if something is damaging to his belief that humans coexisted with dinsosaurs he’ll just refuse to continue the discussion he started. From the concurrent voter ID thread:
 

More like ten or so. In the last fifteen years.
 
righty45 on May 10, 2014 at 7:23 PM

 
Glad to see you’re okay, righty45. You’re citing the NAACP’s “proven” “in person voter fraud” number, correct?
 
rogerb on May 10, 2014 at 9:23 PM

 
I’m fine, thanks. Are you ok? Looks like you’ve been talking to yourself quite a bit in that old thread.
 
righty45 on May 10, 2014 at 9:44 PM

 
Those actions generally show someone isn’t worth responding to, but his zealotry really brought out some interesting information about actual Obamacare coverage on this thread.
 
It’s sort of like scientists disproving fairy tales about a floods and enormous boats and learning interesting details about ancient shipbuilding and weather along with it. I definitely wouldn’t discourage anyone from engaging him so long as you know he can’t/won’t defend his faith.
 
That’s what makes it faith, I suppose. Regardless, have fun.

rogerb on May 11, 2014 at 6:32 AM

Thank goodness I have you rogerb to do all the math. Classic. ; ) One of these days rogerb, one of these days. Lolz!

Bmore on May 11, 2014 at 7:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4