Here is a Yahoo Finance report on the RAND study that has points you and Mother Jones conveniently neglected to include. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/coming-obamacare-shock-170-million-091500303.html Among them are So how many of these seven-million-plus claimed by Obama actually started off without any insurance at all? The Times reported that from an unpublished Rand Corporation study that of the six million who signed up through Obamacare exchanges for private insurance, a third of those had no insurance previous to the rollout. That would come to 4.4 percent of the low end of the LA Times estimate, if that number represented actual enrollments – but it doesn’t. The Daily Mail’s David Martosko reports that the same Rand study shows that only 53 percent of those previously uninsured have actually paid premiums for their selection. The Rand estimate of the newly covered comes just short of 859,000 – or just 1.9 percent of the total number of uninsured that Democrats insisted had to be helped through a costly and disruptive overhaul of the health-insurance industry. Even adding in the estimated six million added to Medicaid – most of whom would have qualified without Obamacare – the first pass only accounts for 15 percent of the problem, as defined by Obama and his fellow Democrats in 2009-10. Also one of the delays instituted by the president will cause the following: The data from HHS after the passage of Obamacare showed that the Obama administration expected as many as 93 million Americans to be thrown out of their existing coverage, with employers opting to either scale down or get out, paying the fine instead. Either way, the ACA imposes massive costs on employers, whether those come in the form of fines, higher premiums, red tape, or a combination of all three. Businesses that have new and massive costs imposed on them by regulatory changes no longer can use that capital for investment, risk-taking, and expansion. That means fewer new jobs for Americans, and fewer opportunities to move up the economic ladder as well. Now, perhaps this would make sense if the program that plans to impose all these costs actually did what Democrats promised it would do – insure the uninsured. However, the numbers offered up by Obama on Tuesday fall very far short of the numbers his administration used to argue that a systemic overhaul was needed to address “the fierce urgency of now” with the uninsured, which the LA Times recalls as between 45-48 million. In fact, it’s not clear at all that the so-called enrollments hailed on April Fools Day offer a break-even point with the uninsured the ACA created. Those numbers are estimated at five to six million Americans in the individual market, many of whom now pay higher premiums and have to clear higher deductibles as the cost of buying more insurance coverage than they believed they needed in the first place Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
My mother-in-law, who is 75 and a widow, works part-time for a private foundation here; has worked for them for almost 10 years. Yesterday, they dropped her off of their health insurance, told her Obamacare made it too expensive to keep her. And Barak is so proud of this shit.
no, not necessarily rednecks at all, Winston. conservatives period are angry as hell right now, regardless of whether they are rednecks or not. my problem with you pointing out any problems at this point are because there isn't enough information yet to make changes. what I have said all along and will continue to say is that as problems arise (not petty, made up political problems, but real issues with the law) we should fix them and not be so hard headed as to imagine that it is without flaw. perhaps some of the issues that you have brought up will be addressed later but not right now. as far as rants go, I think I laid out, pretty well, the case history on Conservative rants and the lack of credibility. So your insinuation that I am the one with the credibility problem is hugely incorrect. and the best you have regarding a defense of your position on the ACA is a late night comic? talk about credibility issues
1 - those who are now insured through the ACA who were previously uninsured are tallied not just as those who signed up through the exchanges, but also those who gained access for the first time through medicaid expansion or who signed up directly through insurance companies and bypassed the web site altogether. It is a total number, not just derived from one stat. Nice try, though. By the way, I knew you would say this. 2 - payment. when is the last time you purchased insurance, Winston? they never ask for payment up front, or in very few cases. will it turn out that there are those who do not pay? sure. law of averages. that said, to use the number 89% is a false indicator and you know it, especially given the late rush of enrollees. Further, in state exchanges that have operated for several months the rate of those who are paying is about 90%. It stated that in the RAND study as well, right next to the figure you provided above, which let's me know how intellectually dishonest you are willing to be in order to win this argument. I also knew you would bring up this point. 3 - the ACA does not impose massive costs on employers. I am an employer. I know what it costs. I just absorbed it. Yes, the new policies cost a little more. So what. It's not that big a difference. People like the Green's who own Hobby Lobby have created this atmosphere but it's a lie and their law suit against the government is about their profits, not religion. HL buys 90% of their goods from China, who has committed over 300 million state sanctioned abortions in the past few years and invests over 70 million in companies that make contraception. 4 - Did you really think that all 40 million people who had no insurance would all sign up in the first open enrollment? seriously, Winston, this is a stretch. The state goal from the very beginning was reached, in spite of every effort on part of the right to derail it. The law is working, deal with it. No thanks on the pipe.....already full of my preferred morning cannabis.
1) Numbers are numbers no matter how you try to shade them NC. Only a few of those who signed up were previously uninsured. That is a fact you can't get around. 2) Recently enough to know that while we don't pay at sign up in effect you aren't insured till you pay. You point out 90% have paid...it would stand to reason those who have insurance would pay as they are used to it. A question neither of us can answer right now is how many of the previously uninsured have paid? 3) Then why did the president delay implementation for small companies, those with Cadillac plans (to placate his union supporters), and others because the cost impact would harm them. BTW your determination of the relative cost to your company is a single example and may or may not have any measure of how the overall population of companies approach the issue. 4) Well NC if less than a million have signed up now..it will take quite a while before they all do so how has that helped them? Wasn't that supposed to be the point of the law? Until they are insured you can't say it is working my friend. 858,000 out of 40 million isn't a promising step. BTW I could tell what you smoked by your reply.
Here is another little know feature of the AHCA. If you didn't sign up now you can't buy health insurance till next year. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-04-04-14-58-45
Read the article. It is a consequence of the AHCA. The risk of signing up more people outside of the sign up period is too great to justify. In other words it is one of the many problems that arise as a result of the law.
I read it. It is not a "feature" of the AHCA but of insurance company policies. You were inaccurate. See, it's not hard to be more precise. But it is still misleading to suggest that ACHA brought on this very long-standing insurance company policy. AHCA is like group insurance to the insurance companies. Ask anyone in group insurance, there has always been an annual sign-in period. Insurance companies have long operated in this fashion. I bet yours does, too. In this instance, both the ACHA and the insurance companies agree that without a sign-in period, many young people would wait until they were sick to enroll. This defeats the purpose of the ACHA, adversely affects the companies actuarial predictions, and costs the rest of us in higher rates than they should be. Effectively, the ACHA creates new, large groups with which the insurance companies can make accurate predictions. This development is not a surprise to anyone who has followed the Law. It was an original postulate that ACHA really only works if everyone has insurance. That is why there is a penalty for non-compliance. With big groups, companies can make very accurate actuarial predictions and reasonable rates. With small groups or individuals the predictions are less accurate, which is why those policies have always been higher. The problem here is that 60% of the public is somehow unaware that there were deadlines by which they had to sign up, even though those dates have been set for years. It is astonishing just how unaware of current events that half of the population is. You want to hear a criticism of the ACHA? They could have better taken into account the tendencies of the public to be unaware of schedules and to procrastinate in general. More effort to announce the impending deadlines should have been made, despite the enormous costs of media dissemination. People who don't follow the news outlets are often oblivious.
