"But numbers from the RAND Corporation study reportedly suggest just 23 percent of enrollees had no insurance previously. Further, the study reveals about just 53 percent of previously uninsured Americans have actually paid for their new plans."

"“If those numbers hold, the actual net gain of paid policies among Americans who lacked medical insurance in the pre-Obamacare days would be just 858,298,” the Daily Mail reports."



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/...or-a-plan/

(04-01-2014 07:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  "But numbers from the RAND Corporation study reportedly suggest just 23 percent of enrollees had no insurance previously. Further, the study reveals about just 53 percent of previously uninsured Americans have actually paid for their new plans."

"“If those numbers hold, the actual net gain of paid policies among Americans who lacked medical insurance in the pre-Obamacare days would be just 858,298,” the Daily Mail reports."



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/...or-a-plan/

Ad what was the total cost for implementing the ACA? Divide that by the total new number of insured. I'm guessing once you divide the total cost by the 858,298 newly insured we could probably have bought each one of them their own personal doctor.

1 Million extra people with insurance is a good thing, but at what cost?




Fun with Math:

858,298 people
$2 Trillion over 10 years


$233,000 per person, per year (CBO).
PLUS:
2.3 Million jobs (CBO)



http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-...78723.html

Working exactly as planned.... bankrupting the country.

(04-01-2014 07:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  1 Million extra people with insurance is a good thing, but at what cost?




Fun with Math:

858,298 people
$2 Trillion over 10 years


$233,000 per person, per year (CBO).
PLUS:
2.3 Million jobs (CBO)



http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-...78723.html

So yes, we could've bought each of them their own private primary care physician.

The late surge was driven by young procrastinators and they should boost the previously uninsured rate. I also suspect some sloppy reporting here, perhaps by taking the previously uninsured rate for the exchange plus off exchange (which was never expected to be mostly uninsured) plans, and applying that rate to just the exchange. I have heard from a reporter with embargoed info from the WH this info is wrong.

Also, you realize just because they haven't paid doesn't mean their payments are past due, right? Most policies give you six weeks to make your first payment, and a million signed up in just the last few days, so we won't know if they failed to pay until June. Insurance companies have been reporting the payment rate generally at 85%.

The question isn't how many previously insured signed up for the exchange. It's how many have coverage in total, including private exchange, off-exchange, employer provided, and state-funded Medicaid.

ACA changed the rules for all of the above. Just to look at exchange signups is myopic.

And the quality of their new coverage also matters but nobody seems to be reporting on that either.

bull**** Max. Count in someone whon lost their prior coverage, or like myself had a plan that didn't meet the new minimum requirements shouldn't be included in the number of previously uninsured that now have coverage. IMO counting new medicaid enrollees shouldn't count either since they aren't actively participating in thw insurance market.
Also, I don't know what insurance you are speaking of when you claim that you get 6 weeks to make your first payment. I work in insurance and if you don't pay, generally you aren't counted as enrolled or insured. Anybody 6 weeks out on a payment would be considered a month begind and in their grace period for reinstatement.
The point of this law was to cover the previously uninsured. Any measure other than that is deflection from original stated goal and should be ignored.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The goal of this law was to expand access to health care. That means insuring the uninsured and enhancing existing policies by removing caps, preventing discrimination based on gender or pre existing conditions etc).

If you don't mind me asking, why was your plan canceled?

What does "actively participating" mean and why aren't people on Medicaid doing that?

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/art...-79776284/

Quote:How many have paid?" (Also known as "The statistics are full of deadbeats"): We examined this argument a few days ago. We observed that the concern is probably exaggerated and certainly premature, since many people who enrolled late in the cycle, including those in the March surge, may not have payments due for as much as six weeks after enrollment. Many haven't even received their first monthly premium bill yet.

The only two states that ask whether people signing up were previously insured, Kentucky and New York, report their previous uninsured rates at 75% and 59%, which calls into question the numbers in the first post to say the least.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101523615

Quote:If getting health coverage for the uninsured is the primary goal of Obamacare, then New York and Kentucky seem to be doing more than their fair share of that work.

In Kentucky, 75 percent of the nearly 65,000 people who enrolled in private Obamacare insurance sold on the state-run exchange were uninsured at the time they enrolled, according to questionnaires they filled out when they applied. And 75 percent of people who enrolled in Medicaid via the exchange likewise had been uninsured.

In New York, 59 percent of the nearly 343,000 private Obamacare plan enrollees reported being uninsured when they picked their plans. And 90 percent of the Medicaid enrollments via the state's exchange reported having been uninsured.

(04-02-2014 09:20 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The only two states that ask whether people signing up were previously insured, Kentucky and New York, report their previous uninsured rates at 75% and 59%, which calls into question the numbers in the first post to say the least.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101523615

Quote:If getting health coverage for the uninsured is the primary goal of Obamacare, then New York and Kentucky seem to be doing more than their fair share of that work.

In Kentucky, 75 percent of the nearly 65,000 people who enrolled in private Obamacare insurance sold on the state-run exchange were uninsured at the time they enrolled, according to questionnaires they filled out when they applied. And 75 percent of people who enrolled in Medicaid via the exchange likewise had been uninsured.

In New York, 59 percent of the nearly 343,000 private Obamacare plan enrollees reported being uninsured when they picked their plans. And 90 percent of the Medicaid enrollments via the state's exchange reported having been uninsured.

In the 3rd most populous state, NY, 202k newly insured signed up. They have 19,651,000 people, which amounts to a 1% increase in insured...

NY's share of the 2 Trillion over 10 years (by population %) = $124 BILLION.
Divided by 10 years
Divided by 202k newly insured

GRAND TOTAL = $62000 PER PERSON PER YEAR best case scenario.


How can that be considered a success?

(04-01-2014 09:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The late surge was driven by young procrastinators and they should boost the previously uninsured rate. I also suspect some sloppy reporting here,

Excuses that don't hold up. Funny that mach is duck and cover from this thread.

These numbers keep coming out for one reason: they're close to accurate.

(04-02-2014 09:51 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 09:20 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The only two states that ask whether people signing up were previously insured, Kentucky and New York, report their previous uninsured rates at 75% and 59%, which calls into question the numbers in the first post to say the least.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101523615

Quote:If getting health coverage for the uninsured is the primary goal of Obamacare, then New York and Kentucky seem to be doing more than their fair share of that work.

In Kentucky, 75 percent of the nearly 65,000 people who enrolled in private Obamacare insurance sold on the state-run exchange were uninsured at the time they enrolled, according to questionnaires they filled out when they applied. And 75 percent of people who enrolled in Medicaid via the exchange likewise had been uninsured.

In New York, 59 percent of the nearly 343,000 private Obamacare plan enrollees reported being uninsured when they picked their plans. And 90 percent of the Medicaid enrollments via the state's exchange reported having been uninsured.

In the 3rd most populous state, NY, 202k newly insured signed up. They have 19,651,000 people, which amounts to a 1% increase in insured...

NY's share of the 2 Trillion over 10 years (by population %) = $124 BILLION.
Divided by 10 years
Divided by 202k newly insured

GRAND TOTAL = $62000 PER PERSON PER YEAR best case scenario.


How can that be considered a success?

You're forgetting Medicaid. You're forgetting to account for the fact even those previously insured are receiving many new protections from the law like for instance they can't be dropped when they get sick. You're forgetting that there are revenue mechanisms in the bill to offset expenses. You're forgetting that the CBO, which was on target with the 7 million projection, also projects we'll hit 22 million in 2 years. You're forgetting all this, giving you the benefit if the doubt.

It's funny.. They were worried they weren't going to hit it.. Then they did.. Now Obama is like, it's here to stay and there'll be no repealing.

What if we find out he overinflated the numbers and it's not even close to 7 million, what do we do with this cluster?

What if we find he's a secret Muslim who ordered the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and Osama is actually alive and holed up in the Diplomatic Room of the White House?

(04-02-2014 10:25 AM)Max Power Wrote:  What if we find he's a secret Muslim who ordered the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and Osama is actually alive and holed up in the Diplomatic Room of the White House?

First.. Take your hand, reach up your a$$ and untwist your drawers.
Second.. Take a deep breath, and try again.

You're smarter than that Max, or I thought you were.

(04-02-2014 10:07 AM)Max Power Wrote:  You're forgetting Medicaid. You're forgetting to account for the fact even those previously insured are receiving many new protections from the law like for instance they can't be dropped when they get sick. You're forgetting that there are revenue mechanisms in the bill to offset expenses. You're forgetting that the CBO, which was on target with the 7 million projection, also projects we'll hit 22 million in 2 years. You're forgetting all this, giving you the benefit if the doubt.

I didn't forget a thing.

I simply did the math that took those things out of the argument. Sorry you don't like the math, but it didn't invent addition or subtraction.

$170/day per person.

Dang, I'm in the wrong business (which is what this is all about, money).

(04-02-2014 12:05 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  I simply did the math that took those things out of the argument.

Then that's bad math.

(04-02-2014 12:18 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 12:05 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  I simply did the math that took those things out of the argument.

Then that's bad math.

Simplicity is only bad when it doesn't fit your agenda.

One more successful program like Obamacare and we will all be
living out of large boxes.