I have been sitting on this story for a few days, not sure it was 100% accurate or if I was missing something. I was more confident when Megyn Kelly did a segment on the story and spoke to one of the architects of Obamacare. He didn’t dismiss the figures, only saying much of it is based on sample surveys and that people are waiting till March to sign up for healthcare insurance. Most of the websites that mentioned the story would be frowned upon by many here, but since Bloomberg is running with it, I believe it deserved a mention on BMG.
I have linked Forbes Op-ed and Bloomberg for this topic, but the story originated from the WSJ (not an Op-Ed but I can’t open the full article). According tho surveys of thousands of enrollees in the Obamacare exchanges, a large majority of these people came from the individual market or had employer-based health insurance, but lost it for one reason or another, and now purchased insurance through the exchanges. For instance, we learned yesterday that Target off-loaded all of their part-time worker, and told them to go to the Obamacare Exchanges for health coverage. This is a good deal for Target and the workers, who will likely get subsidies, but its not helping the uninsured, which I believe was in intent of the bill, I think…
“The first, from McKinsey & Co., indicates that “only 11 percent of consumers who bought new coverage under the law were previously uninsured.” McKinsey surveyed 4,563 individuals “thought to be eligible for the health-law marketplaces,” of which 389 had enrolled in exchange-based plans.”
“HealthMarkets, a insurance holding company based in Texas, conducted its own survey based on the 7,500-or-so people that the company enrolled in exchange-based plans. Based on their survey, obtained by Wilde and Mathews, only 35 percent of enrollees were previously uninsured”
Thus, of the 2.2 million who have enrolled through Obamacare, the number of actual uninsured Americans who have been helped by the law is less than 750,000, far short of the 7 million expected by the supporters of Obamacare. Now, my goal here is not to say “see, I told you so”. I hope some here can look at the data and give an honest assessment and not a partisan spin on what is going on. What does this all mean? If the ugly reality is Obamacare is causing more harm than good, and we are just spinning our wheels to help the uninsured, then time to delay and/or repeal, no?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/01/18/coverage-expansion-fail-less-than-one-third-of-obamacare-exchange-enrollees-were-previously-uninsured/
http://www.bloomberg.com/blogs/view/megan-mcardle/
Christopher says
…65-90% are going to get better coverage and the rest are getting coverage for the first time – got it!
danfromwaltham says
People are paying more for coverages they can’t possible use, like 55 year old women paying for prenatal care. Many were happy with their old plans, stop telling yourself people are are better off when many have higher deductibles, higher premiums, and less choices of hospitals and doctors.
I asked for no spinning…..
kbusch says
A 55 year old woman is paying rates for that age cohort and as such her rates are only minimally affected by the costs of pregnancy.
I ask for knowing what the hell your talking about.
kbusch says
On Atrios’ site there is still a tradition of people competing to get the first comment in — and the first comment is usually “Frist” not “First”.
Here the first comment on a DFW diary might productively consist of warning the reader: (1) the links may not support the assertions because there have been multiple cases of that in the past. (2) sources sited as authorities may not really be authorities because there have been multiple cases of that in the past too. (3) despite frequent signs of not understanding numbers never mind statistics, the author’s reports on anything quantitative should never be taken at face value because the author is severely challenged quantitatively.
I suggest this because, as a community, we have an irrepressible urge to answer DFW. Rather than run off to do his homework for him (reading his sources, figuring out WTF he is talking about, etc.), it is a faster route to accuracy to put out a caveat lector. Let us begin by warning readers to turn on their bullshit sensors preliminary to any deep dives into the manure the braver members of our readership wish to undertake.
johnk says
45% have coverage now ….. that’s great news. Thanks for the update Dan!
danfromwaltham says
Because the CBO told us 14 million uninsured would be enrolled in Obamacare by March. With 10 weeks to go johnk, I don’t see it happening, do you? What would happened if a consultant at your business made such a promise and these were the results? Just say “wow” and be happy?
I do see, based on the risk pool entering the exchanges, that we (those who have insurance but whose employers don’t self-insure) will pay even higher premiums and copays, as a result of the Obamacare mandates and taxes levied on the insurance companies.
johnk says
If my 4th quarter and roll out was as bad as this one, these numbers and trend would impress me. Nice rebound. I see younger people starting to jump in enrolled numbers as well. It’s trending well, with the bad launch.
petr says
That’s a wide range.
If you are saying it is either one or the other, which one is it?
If you are saying it’s somewhere in between then A) where in between? and 2) why such a wide range?
You’re using a very wide variance (almost a generality) to come to a very specific conclusion. I distrust that.
danfromwaltham says
We know something like 6 million people have lost their health insurance, it’s been documented and certified, real lives and names posted on BMG. That’s not in dispute anymore, apology and contrition by Obama a couple months ago.
So, 6 million lose their health care, 2.2 million receive health insurance. Does it stand to reason the vast majority, even at the low end of 65%, had insurance prior to Obamacare. The samples are from various parts of the country. It’s likely in the middle, 75-25. Again, CBO said 14 million “uninsured” would sign up by end of March, the early numbers are disturbing, troubling, and scary for those of us who may be asked to walk the plank, and put these exchanges b/c the law upended the insurance market.
petr says
… the world is flat. But it isn’t. A lot of things make sense superficially but which come unravelled when you look closer. In fact, I would posit that almost everything everyone ever tried to make sense of once underwent this process… maybe even more than once. Or, put another way, what you know you don’t really know.
Your numbers make very little sense. If 6 million people lost their health insurance, but only 2.2 million re-upped then either the 6 million number or the 2.2 million number is wrong. I expect that this will be something akin to the employment numbers which are constantly being revised and updated and just as constantly revising expectations and understandings.
Mark L. Bail says
Millions of people who didn’t have health insurance now have it. Many people who had it before it before, now have better health insurance. And all those people denied the Medicaid because GOP governors hate poor people? Where do they fit in?
The states that cooperated with Obamacare seem to be doing a lot better than those with obstructionist governors.
petr says
Obamacare also fights crime!
danfromwaltham says
Now according to the Forbes link, only 5% of the Medicaid enrollees can be credited to Obamacare. I’m not saying that is written in stone, just repeating what was written.
Now, my question is, could not we have just expanded Medicaid to help the poor, rather than impacting the entire insurance market with a 2000 page bill?
Mark L. Bail says
a little more research so you can do more than repeat an assertion that you don’t even think is true?
HR's Kevin says
n/t
John Tehan says
…through COBRA, at a cost of over $750 per month. I didn’t make a lot of money in 2013, so when I applied at the exchange, I got a plan with zero premium, zero co-pay and a wide range of benefits – let me tell you, I am overjoyed with my new coverage!
So, I guess I’m in that ridiculously wide range of 65-90% who had coverage before, but now I have better coverage at an enormous savings. Color me in as a happy Obama voter, Dan!
jconway says
And I am also quite satisfied, as I posted with my own ACA experience a few weeks ago. The results for KY and WV are also incredibly satisfying to read about. Wish Obama could go to those states and say ‘hey I actually got this stuff for you, whose happy with me now?’, but unfortunately Grimes and Tennant are running away from the staggering success of Obamacare in their own states.
And to the extent that this is killing employer based insurance and pushing more people into a public pool isn’t this a good thing?
danfromwaltham says
If you are eligible for a plan with zero premium and zero copay, why not just have people who qualify for such a plan, go on Medicaid, rather than disrupting the existing insurance market like Obamacare does? I have not heard of health care insurance with no premiums and no copays since Gov. Walker went to war with the Wisconsin Teachers Union, who had similar plans.
The cobra cost is ridiculous, I would not pay it.
kbusch says
is precisely the point.
The existing insurance market didn’t work.
John Tehan says
My high blood pressure, if left untreated, could have caused kidney failure or other nasty problems, and probably would have shortened my lifespan considerably. My daughter, who has a significant pre-existing condition, would also have to go without coverage if I failed to make my premium payments. Should she be condemned to an early death because my COBRA premiums were exorbitant? Should anyone be similarly condemned to an early death so that health insurance companies can rake in obscene profits and pay their CEOs $50,000.00 per hour?
COBRA was my only option. That was the system in 2013 and I had to deal with it Dan – and that’s what changed on 10/1/13. Obamacare took care of me, and I’m grateful it was there when I needed it.
danfromwaltham says
And for you to be forced to buy COBRA at over $700 per month is an outrage and injustice. Why hasnt Deval and Co. passed legislation that would allow you to go on the Healthcare Connector and purchase a plan where under Romneycare, subsidies are available as well. If there is a problem with having a pre-existing condition, Deval should have fixed it in 2009. It is outrageous and a moral indictment on Beacon Hill that you were forced to pay $750 a month or basically lose everything. You had to wait till Oct 1? I tell ya, I wouldn’t lift a finger for a MA Democrat, if that is what they think of you and others who were in your situation.
petr says
…could not open the full (WSJ) article.
But I could clearly see the headline, which reads thusly:
(emphasis mine…)
Thus making the bloggers certainty and surety more and more suspect…
Christopher says
“I was more confident when Megyn Kelly did a segment…” Credibility hits the floor pretty quickly when that is your standard. By the same token I am now more confident than ever that Santa Claus and Jesus were white🙂
kirth says
I’m usually confident too, when Megyn Kelly does a story. I’m confident the truth is not to be found in it.
danfromwaltham says
Well, hey, I’m only human, so of course it’s Megyn Kelly for me. Plus, Megyn isn’t afraid to have people of the other side debate her.
kirth says
You believe that Rachel Maddow’s viewers are not human?
You believe Maddow does not have people she disagrees with on her show?
These are, of course rhetorical questions, because you’re never going to tell us what you really believe.
mike_cote says
and Sean Hannity and Megan Kelly.
mike_cote says
Wow, that must be some Peabody Award winning Television!
Mark L. Bail says
on the next right wing, Obamacare lie you’re going to post on? That way we can start researching it now. Last week’s was about enrollment of young persons, Fox Misinterprets New Enrollment Stats To Predict ACA Doomsday:
I know there will be another mistruth. I’m asking for help. We’re slow on the Left and the Cliffs Notes aren’t out yet.
danfromwaltham says
Yet, your own quote used the words “many safeguards in the program”.
Now, is part of the “safeguards” that if insurance companies do suffer high loses, that there is a trigger to bail them out? That is part of the law, that Sen. Rubio will be pushing for a vote, that no bailout of any insurance company. You appear to believe thst everything will be fine by April, that all of a sudden, young people will have an epiphany and sign up at the very end.
So you go on the record and support Marco Rubio’s call to repeal a section if ACA that allows for bailouts of insurance companies. Yes or no? You do realize by answering no, you admit you don’t believe what you just posted, do be careful how you answer.
kbusch says
.
danfromwaltham says
And show everyone on BMG that we are against any health insurance bailout.
kbusch says
If you can’t follow the conversation, you shouldn’t participate.
We might add that Rubio’s bill is another Republican case of trying to govern by talking point. If the neologism “ObamaCare” is in the title of the bill, little further needs to be said.
The PPACA seems to have gone to some length to mitigate the uneven distribution of risk. Having the government ready to bail out insurance companies — so, you know, claims can be paid against policies and so the insurance market doesn’t tighten up in some places — seems prudent and reasonable.
danfromwaltham says
signing up for Obamacare. You dispute the doomsday scenario b/c of the safeguards hidden deep inside the bowels of ACA, one of which is a taxpayer bailout of these insurance companies, if they suffer losses due to an adverse risk pool of having older, sicker people join Obamacare and the younger, healthier ones do not.
To my surprise, both of you, as well as petr and JC (both gave positive recommendations to Mark’s comment) support this bailout provision. It’s now wonder the insurance companies supported Obamacare, it’s a big wet kiss for them.
On the other hand, Mr. And Mrs. America gets a kick in the gut with cancellations of existing healthcare plans, loss of doctors, Obamacare taxes being passed down to small businesses and their employees, limited choices of hospitals and specialists, high premiums and deductibles, and no subsidies for Americans making a meager income. Instead of being tossed lifeline, we are asked to keep treading water as the sharks circle around us.
Mark L. Bail says
on enrollment, Dan. Try to check out the opposing side before posting drivel you haven’t read first.
Maybe you’ll get lucky. I’m not going to play bait and switch.
kbusch says
.
danfromwaltham says
I would ask the judge for a summary judgment b/c the discussion has been so lopsided in my favor.
kirth says
*
Mark L. Bail says
have been ruled out of order a long time ago. You violate the rules of evidence. You insist on arguing a new case in the midst of the one being tried. And you consider yourself judge and jury, not just the prosecutor.
danfromwaltham says
“–U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) today introduced S.1726, The ObamaCare Bailout Prevention Act, a bill that would eliminate a provision of ObamaCare that allows for taxpayer-funded bailouts of insurance companies at the Obama Administration’s sole discretion.
Under ObamaCare’s section 1342, so-called risk corridors were established for the law’s first three years as a safety net for insurers who experience financial losses. ”
“Under ObamaCare’s section 1342, so-called risk corridors were established for the law’s first three years as a safety net for insurers who experience financial losses. Rubio’s bill would fully repeal the risk corridor provision, thereby ensuring that no bailout will occur under ObamaCare’s section 1342.”
Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2014/01/marco-rubio-warns-of-clear-signs-of-impending-obamacare-insurer-bailout.html#storylink=cpy
Mark L. Bail says
You’ve been right all along. I just can’t admit it.
Or you could stick to the subject long enough to admit you’re wrong.