Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Time is running out to sign up.
Author Message
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #581
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-07-2014 11:57 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 08:04 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Here is a nice article on Gaba and his website.

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/4/5572310/the-...arles-gaba

A propaganda piece. Numbers are based on those released by the Zero Administration. Garbage in, garbage out. 07-coffee3

It is that sunny disposition that makes us all love you Sum.
04-08-2014 07:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #582
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 8, 2014: 7.50M

Estimated Total, all sources: (13.7 M - 32.8 M)

Individual QHP Range: (6.98M - 15.31M) • SHOP QHP Range: (106K - 7.27M)

Medicaid/CHIP (5.11M - 7.14M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exchange Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand Corp. study finds up to 7.8M total nationally)
(OFF-Exchange SHOP QHPs: 34K confirmed; Rand Corp. study finds up to 7.2M total nationally)

From Charles Gaba @ http://www.acasignups.net
04-09-2014 01:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #583
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-09-2014 01:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 8, 2014: 7.50M

Estimated Total, all sources: (13.7 M - 32.8 M)

Individual QHP Range: (6.98M - 15.31M) • SHOP QHP Range: (106K - 7.27M)

Medicaid/CHIP (5.11M - 7.14M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exchange Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand Corp. study finds up to 7.8M total nationally)
(OFF-Exchange SHOP QHPs: 34K confirmed; Rand Corp. study finds up to 7.2M total nationally)

From Charles Gaba @ http://www.acasignups.net

So what do you think were the costs of achieving this?
Is it worth those costs?
Could these (or even better) results have been achieved at lower cost by other means?
04-09-2014 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #584
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-09-2014 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-09-2014 01:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 8, 2014: 7.50M

Estimated Total, all sources: (13.7 M - 32.8 M)

Individual QHP Range: (6.98M - 15.31M) • SHOP QHP Range: (106K - 7.27M)

Medicaid/CHIP (5.11M - 7.14M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exchange Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand Corp. study finds up to 7.8M total nationally)
(OFF-Exchange SHOP QHPs: 34K confirmed; Rand Corp. study finds up to 7.2M total nationally)

From Charles Gaba @ http://www.acasignups.net

So what do you think were the costs of achieving this?
Is it worth those costs?
Could these (or even better) results have been achieved at lower cost by other means?

Those are good questions but I can't really answer them in any detail. I'm sure there are a multitude of ways to measure the cost and depending on what group or individual is doing so will have a lot to do with how that is interpreted.

I'm sure there are better ways to achieve the same or better results, but I doubt that any of them could have gotten implemented. Many on the left would argue that single payer would be much more efficient and I'm sure there are those on the right that have something in mind that they would argue would be more efficient. I think we have the only realistic fix. It has it's flaws, but it seems to be doing what it is intended to do.
04-09-2014 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #585
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-09-2014 07:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  
(04-09-2014 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So what do you think were the costs of achieving this?
Is it worth those costs?
Could these (or even better) results have been achieved at lower cost by other means?
Those are good questions but I can't really answer them in any detail. I'm sure there are a multitude of ways to measure the cost and depending on what group or individual is doing so will have a lot to do with how that is interpreted.
I'm sure there are better ways to achieve the same or better results, but I doubt that any of them could have gotten implemented. Many on the left would argue that single payer would be much more efficient and I'm sure there are those on the right that have something in mind that they would argue would be more efficient. I think we have the only realistic fix. It has it's flaws, but it seems to be doing what it is intended to do.

I think that's a pretty reasonable assessment, although I think that had the democrats been willing to work with republicans and compromise, we would probably have ended up with a better system. Not the best. The best is a Bismarck universal private insurance system, like France or Holland or Germany or Switzerland, among others, but neither party seems interested in going there.

I think this is more about political expediency than improving health care. I think that was always the democrats' objective; unfortunately, I think the republicans have joined them in that conceptual approach.
04-09-2014 07:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCF08 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,262
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 211
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #586
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-09-2014 07:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-09-2014 07:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  
(04-09-2014 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So what do you think were the costs of achieving this?
Is it worth those costs?
Could these (or even better) results have been achieved at lower cost by other means?
Those are good questions but I can't really answer them in any detail. I'm sure there are a multitude of ways to measure the cost and depending on what group or individual is doing so will have a lot to do with how that is interpreted.
I'm sure there are better ways to achieve the same or better results, but I doubt that any of them could have gotten implemented. Many on the left would argue that single payer would be much more efficient and I'm sure there are those on the right that have something in mind that they would argue would be more efficient. I think we have the only realistic fix. It has it's flaws, but it seems to be doing what it is intended to do.

I think that's a pretty reasonable assessment, although I think that had the democrats been willing to work with republicans and compromise, we would probably have ended up with a better system. Not the best. The best is a Bismarck universal private insurance system, like France or Holland or Germany or Switzerland, among others, but neither party seems interested in going there.

I think this is more about political expediency than improving health care. I think that was always the democrats' objective; unfortunately, I think the republicans have joined them in that conceptual approach.

Owl, I think had the house republicans not been completely recalcitrant, you might have gotten your wish and we may have gotten a (slightly) better program. Realistically though, this is a pretty good start to fixing some problems while still being far from perfect.
04-10-2014 02:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #587
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-10-2014 02:48 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  
(04-09-2014 07:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-09-2014 07:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Those are good questions but I can't really answer them in any detail. I'm sure there are a multitude of ways to measure the cost and depending on what group or individual is doing so will have a lot to do with how that is interpreted.
I'm sure there are better ways to achieve the same or better results, but I doubt that any of them could have gotten implemented. Many on the left would argue that single payer would be much more efficient and I'm sure there are those on the right that have something in mind that they would argue would be more efficient. I think we have the only realistic fix. It has it's flaws, but it seems to be doing what it is intended to do.
I think that's a pretty reasonable assessment, although I think that had the democrats been willing to work with republicans and compromise, we would probably have ended up with a better system. Not the best. The best is a Bismarck universal private insurance system, like France or Holland or Germany or Switzerland, among others, but neither party seems interested in going there.
I think this is more about political expediency than improving health care. I think that was always the democrats' objective; unfortunately, I think the republicans have joined them in that conceptual approach.
Owl, I think had the house republicans not been completely recalcitrant, you might have gotten your wish and we may have gotten a (slightly) better program. Realistically though, this is a pretty good start to fixing some problems while still being far from perfect.

Now, as opposed to dawgit's comments, I don't think that's a reasonable or accurate assessment.

Republicans had numerous ideas initially and were quite open about sharing them--malpractice reform, opening exchanges up interstate (which was the original republican/Heritage concept of exchanges), greater use of HSAs with high deductible insurance (which is probably the best way to control costs, and ironic that the exchange policies all seem to carry relatively higher deductibles than before, but with HSAs less feasible than before, not more). Republicans became "recalcitrant" when democrats made it obvious that they weren't going to give any consideration to any republican ideas.

I agree that those changes would have made the program better, although perhaps as you suggest only slightly so. The basic problem would remain--this is fundamentally a seriously flawed approach. It isn't a good start to fixing anything. We are increasing demand (at least in theory, by increasing the number of insureds) while restricting and reducing supply (by cutting payments to providers in order to cut costs). That has never worked ever in all recorded history. We have swapped the problem of a lack of health insurance for some who need health care, for what will become a lack of health care for those counting on insurance to pay for it.

The biggest problem with our old system was tying health insurance to employment. We still have that problem. The biggest problem with centralized command and control systems is that unaccountable bureaucrats replace the doctor-patient relationship in decision making. With the IAPB, HCC, and CCO, we will now have that problem too. The 85% of the population who had health insurance and were generally satisfied with their health care according to polling will now pay more to wait longer for worse health care. What do we get in return? Some but not all of the previously uninsured now have insurance which pays part but not all of the cost for them to wait in line to see some but not all doctors.
04-10-2014 05:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #588
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 9, 2014: 7.55M

Estimated Total, all sources: (13.8 M - 33.9 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.02M - 15.35M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.11M - 7.14M)

ESI Range (106K - 8.27M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 7.8M total)
(OFF-Exch. Employer-Supplied Ins.: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M total)

from Charles Gaba @ acasignups.net
04-10-2014 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #589
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
Another milestone may have been reached.

Quote:by Charles Gaba on Wed, 04/09/2014 - 11:53pm

Assuming that my "back of the napkin" estimates on extension-period exchange QHP enrollment are accurate, the ACA has just crossed several important milestones, including:

7.5 Million exchange-based private QHP enrollments (total)
7.0 Million exchange-based private QHP enrollments (paid or will pay within a month of their policies actually kicking in)
20 Million documented enrollments total (ie, including all types--individual QHPs, on exchange, off-exchange, Medicaid, woodworkers, sub26ers, etc...but not including the 13.9 million undocumented, non-specific additional off-exchange QHPs and ESIs suggested by the RAND Corp. study)
04-10-2014 08:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #590
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
If you expand and open up welfare, people will sign up. And just think how big the rolls would grow if food stamps were mandated.
04-10-2014 08:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #591
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
04-10-2014 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #592
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-10-2014 08:00 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 9, 2014: 7.55M

Estimated Total, all sources: (13.8 M - 33.9 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.02M - 15.35M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.11M - 7.14M)

ESI Range (106K - 8.27M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 7.8M total)
(OFF-Exch. Employer-Supplied Ins.: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M total)

from Charles Gaba @ acasignups.net

The difference a day makes.



Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 10, 2014: 7.59M

Estimated Total, all sources: (13.9 M - 34.0 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.06M - 15.39M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.22M - 7.28M)

ESI Range (106K - 8.27M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 7.8M total)
(OFF-Exch. Employer-Supplied Ins.: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M total)
04-11-2014 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #593
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-10-2014 07:29 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Two New Studies Raise Red Flags on Obamacare

It is an interesting read but evidently the writer isn't as on top of the issue as much as he would lead us to believe. One obvious red flag in his analysis is that he doesn't understand how risk pools work. He keeps saying that the exchange policies have a disproportional percentage of those with health issues as opposed to the non exchange private policies. The insurance companies don't have separate risk pools for the two. All the policies a company sells go into one risk pool to determine rates, they don't care how they sold them, it is one group.

The Rand study is an interesting one as far as it goes. But it is incomplete as it doesn't include the last month of signups and has a fairly high margin of error. No one seems to be able to explain its assertion that 8.2 million additional people are now on employer based plans in 2014. New employees can't explain it. Are they employees that previously passed on the option because of costs and have signed up because of the individual mandate? 8.2 m is a heck of a lot of people.
04-11-2014 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #594
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 11, 2014: 7.63M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.0 M - 34.1 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.09M - 15.42M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESI Range (106K - 8.27M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 7.8M total)
(OFF-Exch. Employer-Supplied Ins.: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M total)
04-11-2014 09:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #595
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-11-2014 09:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 11, 2014: 7.63M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.0 M - 34.1 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.09M - 15.42M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESI Range (106K - 8.27M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 7.8M total)
(OFF-Exch. Employer-Supplied Ins.: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M total)

Gaba made a downward adjustment to his top of range estimate for total all sources until he can get better information. Exchange enrollment seems to indicate that the numbers could come close to reaching 8 million by Tuesday.
Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 12, 2014: 7.66M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.0 M - 20.2 M)*

Individual QHP Range: (7.09M - 9.75M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESIs (106K documented) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

*(see 4/12/14 update for explanation of change)

(OFF-Exch. QHPs: 2.09M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 5.7M more possible)
(OFF-Exch. ESIs: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M more possible)
http://acasignups.net/
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2014 12:11 AM by dawgitall.)
04-13-2014 12:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #596
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-13-2014 12:10 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 09:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 11, 2014: 7.63M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.0 M - 34.1 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.09M - 15.42M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESI Range (106K - 8.27M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 7.8M total)
(OFF-Exch. Employer-Supplied Ins.: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M total)

Gaba made a downward adjustment to his top of range estimate for total all sources until he can get better information. Exchange enrollment seems to indicate that the numbers could come close to reaching 8 million by Tuesday.
Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 12, 2014: 7.66M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.0 M - 20.2 M)*

Individual QHP Range: (7.09M - 9.75M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESIs (106K documented) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

*(see 4/12/14 update for explanation of change)

(OFF-Exch. QHPs: 2.09M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 5.7M more possible)
(OFF-Exch. ESIs: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M more possible)
http://acasignups.net/

Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 15, 2014: 8.03M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.4 M - 23.5 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.47M - 13.03M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESIs (106K documented) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. ESIs: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M more possible)
04-18-2014 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #597
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-18-2014 02:50 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 12:10 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 09:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 11, 2014: 7.63M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.0 M - 34.1 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.09M - 15.42M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESI Range (106K - 8.27M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 7.8M total)
(OFF-Exch. Employer-Supplied Ins.: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M total)

Gaba made a downward adjustment to his top of range estimate for total all sources until he can get better information. Exchange enrollment seems to indicate that the numbers could come close to reaching 8 million by Tuesday.
Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 12, 2014: 7.66M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.0 M - 20.2 M)*

Individual QHP Range: (7.09M - 9.75M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESIs (106K documented) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

*(see 4/12/14 update for explanation of change)

(OFF-Exch. QHPs: 2.09M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 5.7M more possible)
(OFF-Exch. ESIs: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M more possible)
http://acasignups.net/

Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 15, 2014: 8.03M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.4 M - 23.5 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.47M - 13.03M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESIs (106K documented) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. ESIs: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M more possible)

Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 30, 2014: 8.14M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.4 M - 23.6 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.57M - 13.14M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.22M - 7.26M)

ESIs (111K confirmed; up to 8.2M more possible) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)
04-28-2014 08:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,052
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #598
RE: Time is running out to sign up.
(04-28-2014 08:48 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 02:50 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 12:10 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 09:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 11, 2014: 7.63M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.0 M - 34.1 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.09M - 15.42M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESI Range (106K - 8.27M) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. Individual QHPs: 2.07M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 7.8M total)
(OFF-Exch. Employer-Supplied Ins.: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M total)

Gaba made a downward adjustment to his top of range estimate for total all sources until he can get better information. Exchange enrollment seems to indicate that the numbers could come close to reaching 8 million by Tuesday.
Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 12, 2014: 7.66M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.0 M - 20.2 M)*

Individual QHP Range: (7.09M - 9.75M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESIs (106K documented) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

*(see 4/12/14 update for explanation of change)

(OFF-Exch. QHPs: 2.09M confirmed; Rand study finds up to 5.7M more possible)
(OFF-Exch. ESIs: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M more possible)
http://acasignups.net/

Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 15, 2014: 8.03M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.4 M - 23.5 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.47M - 13.03M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.23M - 7.29M)

ESIs (106K documented) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

(OFF-Exch. ESIs: 34K confirmed; Rand study finds up to 8.2M more possible)

Estimated Exchange QHPs as of April 30, 2014: 8.14M

Estimated Total, all sources: (14.4 M - 23.6 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.57M - 13.14M) • Medicaid/CHIP (5.22M - 7.26M)

ESIs (111K confirmed; up to 8.2M more possible) • Sub26ers (1.60M - 3.10M)

Estimated Exchange QHPs as of May 4, 2014: 8.14M

Estimated Total, all sources: (15.3 M - 24.7 M)

Individual QHP Range: (7.55M - 13.14M) • Medicaid/CHIP (6.06M - 8.32M)

ESIs (110K confirmed; up to 8.2M more possible) • Sub26ers (1.63M - 3.13M)
05-04-2014 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.