(09-19-2014 06:40 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 10:11 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  At this point, there is so much contradictory information out there that I doubt we will ever know the truth.

It is from HHS so I think it is accurate.

to quote an Icon... "Trust but verify". You've got the first part, but how do you do the second?

It isn't that complicated. Simply compare the government numbers with individual state numbers and insurance company figures. If the HHS numbers don't jive with individual state numbers and individual private insurance companies then they might have an argument. But each are showing similar figures. About 90% that sign up make their first payment, people drop out and start up every month (churn), and about 7.3 million have active, paid policies on any given day. So sure, "trust but verify" and evidence shows HHS isn't skewing the numbers.

(09-19-2014 08:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 06:40 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 10:11 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  At this point, there is so much contradictory information out there that I doubt we will ever know the truth.

It is from HHS so I think it is accurate.

to quote an Icon... "Trust but verify". You've got the first part, but how do you do the second?

It isn't that complicated. Simply compare the government numbers with individual state numbers and insurance company figures. If the HHS numbers don't jive with individual state numbers and individual private insurance companies then they might have an argument. But each are showing similar figures. About 90% that sign up make their first payment, people drop out and start up every month (churn), and about 7.3 million have active, paid policies on any given day. So sure, "trust but verify" and evidence shows HHS isn't skewing the numbers.

The easiest way to know if those numbers are real is to see if the insurance carriers require a bailout. If they do, then those numbers simply aren't legit. (Or they are made up of primarily subsidized customers, which means Obamacare will collapse.)

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the HHS and everyone else are reporting active policies as including those which are reinstateable. Under Obamacare, the reinstatement period is long (at least 90 days) and coverage must be supplied by doctors within that period, even if a payment hasn't been made. If that is the case, then there has only been 4 reporting months where policies would have been cancelled.

The true metric used by all insurance companies is the PIF (policies in force). A PIF is a policy which is active and paid up to date. There is no way, if there are 7.3 million Obamacare customers, that the PIF number is anywhere near 7.3 million, except that a majority of the customers are completely subsidized. ( and even then, the government has been failing to make payments for the subsidized people, which tells you how badly the system sucks.)

But the real question, which continues to be hidden, is how many young unsubsidized male Obamacare customers are there? Because that will tell you if the whole thing will collapse.. I don't care if there are 10 billion people on Obamacare, without enough young unsubsidized males, it doesn't matter.

So I see that dog tail is back on here counting stupid numbers as 'success'

How many more doctors has the ACA funded? How many more appointments have they created. Has the 'wait time' for care increased or decreased? What good is having 'insurance' if you still end up at the ED because you can't get into a PCP? THAT is why Obama said we all needed insurance, yet NOTHING in the ACA addresses that need.

Instead, we're all touting the number of people who sign up (You realize it's THE LAW to sign up, right? And signing uninsured people up is the ONLY way that hospitals and clinics that can now get reimbursed for their services) and the number of people who PAY for what they signed up for (ALSO the law).

Keep spreading your misinformation though

(07-13-2014 03:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The last figures I saw for canceled policies when all was said and done was around 2 million. That of course isn't an indication of how many signed up for plans from the exchanges. Unless they would qualify for a subsidy there would be little reason for them to go that route.

Why? Are you saying that exchange policies can't possibly be competitive with private insurance? Why would that be?

The FACT is that exchange policies are often the ONLY option available to many in less populated areas. Private policies can't get large enough doctors networks to make it work.

Quote:Recent surveys indicate that a little less than 6 out of 10 that got policies on the exchanges were previously uninsured and about half of all those that bought individual plans were previously uninsured.

Sure. Every single person who was uninsurable is now insurable. Anyone who couldn't afford insurance now gets it for free. Why would this surprise you.

The question is, where are the other half of those people who are buying individual plans or exchange policies coming from? Pretty obviously they were previously insured. How many of them lost coverage or their old policy prices went way up so they went to these options?

Quote:I understand that you are trying to say that people might be mistakenly included in the previously uninsured that had their policies canceled but from what I have seen regarding the wording of the questions this isn't the case.

Then where did those other 50% of those who are buying private policies and more than 40% of those buying exchange policies who weren't previously uninsured coming from?

It's not a mistake that those people are included... I've read the questions, too (and I do this for a living). People MAY wait until the actual cancellation date of their old policy to start the new one, ESPECIALLY if the new policy costs more (which if you understand why a company would drop coverage or what a non-compliant policy was, you KNOW that they almost always do) but they would STILL answer the question 'are you currently insured' in the affirmative, even if it cancels tomorrow.

Quote:Also a recent Kaiser study showed that about half of those that had their non-compliant policies canceled are paying more and about half are paying less.

I find it funny that when you want to make something look bigger than it is, you say 'just under 6 out of 10' and when you want it to look smaller you say 'about half'.

You are completely spinning this out of control

According to that Kaiser survey, 32% of those who were in non-compliant, non-group plans now enrolled in compliant plans say they were negatively affected by the ACA and only 12% say they benefitted from it. Only 34% who had their coverage canceled in the last 12 months say they benefitted. That's not 'about half'... It's 'just over 3 in 10' who had their coverage cancelled benefitted.

Let's start with this...

57% of the people signing up were previously uninsured. Isn't it pretty obvious that the primary reasons the majority of those people were uninsured were a) they had PECs and b) they couldn't afford insurance? So you eliminate the PEC exclusion (which means they get a subsidy from those who don't have those conditions) and you give hard subsidies for those who can't afford it. So 57% of the people in the survey are getting more value than something actually costs... and yet 'only about half' of the people in the survey are paying more and 'about half' are paying less?

Your schtick may sell to stupid people, but many of us aren't stupid

(09-19-2014 11:35 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So I see that dog tail is back on here counting stupid numbers as 'success'

How many more doctors has the ACA funded? How many more appointments have they created. Has the 'wait time' for care increased or decreased? What good is having 'insurance' if you still end up at the ED because you can't get into a PCP? THAT is why Obama said we all needed insurance, yet NOTHING in the ACA addresses that need.

Instead, we're all touting the number of people who sign up (You realize it's THE LAW to sign up, right? And signing uninsured people up is the ONLY way that hospitals and clinics that can now get reimbursed for their services) and the number of people who PAY for what they signed up for (ALSO the law).

Keep spreading your misinformation though

(07-13-2014 03:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The last figures I saw for canceled policies when all was said and done was around 2 million. That of course isn't an indication of how many signed up for plans from the exchanges. Unless they would qualify for a subsidy there would be little reason for them to go that route.

Why? Are you saying that exchange policies can't possibly be competitive with private insurance? Why would that be?

The FACT is that exchange policies are often the ONLY option available to many in less populated areas. Private policies can't get large enough doctors networks to make it work.

Quote:Recent surveys indicate that a little less than 6 out of 10 that got policies on the exchanges were previously uninsured and about half of all those that bought individual plans were previously uninsured.

Sure. Every single person who was uninsurable is now insurable. Anyone who couldn't afford insurance now gets it for free. Why would this surprise you.

The question is, where are the other half of those people who are buying individual plans or exchange policies coming from? Pretty obviously they were previously insured. How many of them lost coverage or their old policy prices went way up so they went to these options?

Quote:I understand that you are trying to say that people might be mistakenly included in the previously uninsured that had their policies canceled but from what I have seen regarding the wording of the questions this isn't the case.

Then where did those other 50% of those who are buying private policies and more than 40% of those buying exchange policies who weren't previously uninsured coming from?

It's not a mistake that those people are included... I've read the questions, too (and I do this for a living). People MAY wait until the actual cancellation date of their old policy to start the new one, ESPECIALLY if the new policy costs more (which if you understand why a company would drop coverage or what a non-compliant policy was, you KNOW that they almost always do) but they would STILL answer the question 'are you currently insured' in the affirmative, even if it cancels tomorrow.

Quote:Also a recent Kaiser study showed that about half of those that had their non-compliant policies canceled are paying more and about half are paying less.

I find it funny that when you want to make something look bigger than it is, you say 'just under 6 out of 10' and when you want it to look smaller you say 'about half'.

You are completely spinning this out of control

According to that Kaiser survey, 32% of those who were in non-compliant, non-group plans now enrolled in compliant plans say they were negatively affected by the ACA and only 12% say they benefitted from it. Only 34% who had their coverage canceled in the last 12 months say they benefitted. That's not 'about half'... It's 'just over 3 in 10' who had their coverage cancelled benefitted.

Let's start with this...

57% of the people signing up were previously uninsured. Isn't it pretty obvious that the primary reasons the majority of those people were uninsured were a) they had PECs and b) they couldn't afford insurance? So you eliminate the PEC exclusion (which means they get a subsidy from those who don't have those conditions) and you give hard subsidies for those who can't afford it. So 57% of the people in the survey are getting more value than something actually costs... and yet 'only about half' of the people in the survey are paying more and 'about half' are paying less?

Your schtick may sell to stupid people, but many of us aren't stupid

That is a long winded response to me posting that HHS reported the other day that 7.3 million people are currently covered by a marketplace (exchange) plan. It's not "schtick" when I simply post current numbers, estimates, and survey results. You just seem to want to create a negative spin on everything related to the program. I wouldn't expect anything less from those that have fought the ACA tooth and nail for years now.

(09-19-2014 01:04 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  That is a long winded response to me posting that HHS reported the other day that 7.3 million people are currently covered by a marketplace (exchange) plan. It's not "schtick" when I simply post current numbers, estimates, and survey results. You just seem to want to create a negative spin on everything related to the program. I wouldn't expect anything less from those that have fought the ACA tooth and nail for years now.

I find it amusing that you keep complaining about the lengths of my responses.

Actually that's the problem. The simplest response to you (and the one most people prefer) is that you (and those who support Obamacare) don't know what you're talking about.

So rather than treat you like you're intelligent and can handle actual facts, I'll play your game:


Stop talking about how many more patients you're signing up. That number is meaningless because it is the law that people sign up. That is shtick because it deflects from providing healthcare to people.

Tell me how many more doctors, or office appointment slots you're creating to address the shortage of care that was the primary purpose behind Obamacare.

Answer = ZERO.

You are exercising demand-side economics but ignoring that residency slots are primarily funded by the government.

So let's assume for the sake of argument that the numbers are correct and we truly have 7.3 million more insureds. Where is the incremental health care to serve them going to come from? What if the long-term impact is to reduce the economic attractiveness of being a health care provider? How do we deal with more demand and less supply?

The primary function of Obamacare should be to deliver healthcare, not to sign people up for insurance. The left keeps wanting to talk about the latter, which has very little to do with the former

(09-19-2014 08:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 06:40 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 10:11 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  At this point, there is so much contradictory information out there that I doubt we will ever know the truth.

It is from HHS so I think it is accurate.

to quote an Icon... "Trust but verify". You've got the first part, but how do you do the second?

It isn't that complicated. Simply compare the government numbers with individual state numbers and insurance company figures. If the HHS numbers don't jive with individual state numbers and individual private insurance companies then they might have an argument. But each are showing similar figures. About 90% that sign up make their first payment, people drop out and start up every month (churn), and about 7.3 million have active, paid policies on any given day. So sure, "trust but verify" and evidence shows HHS isn't skewing the numbers.

Well then mark the date. This would the first thing this lying pack of lying liars hasn't lied about regarding zerOcare.

It's taken somewhat of a back seat here of late, but those '15 increases and cancellations are about to start hitting.

November can't get here soon enough.

(09-19-2014 01:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The primary function of Obamacare should be to deliver healthcare, not to sign people up for insurance. The left keeps wanting to talk about the latter, which has very little to do with the former

No, the primary purpose of Obamacare is to facilitate control by Big Brother over one more aspect of our lives.

(09-19-2014 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:04 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  That is a long winded response to me posting that HHS reported the other day that 7.3 million people are currently covered by a marketplace (exchange) plan. It's not "schtick" when I simply post current numbers, estimates, and survey results. You just seem to want to create a negative spin on everything related to the program. I wouldn't expect anything less from those that have fought the ACA tooth and nail for years now.

I find it amusing that you keep complaining about the lengths of my responses.

Actually that's the problem. The simplest response to you (and the one most people prefer) is that you (and those who support Obamacare) don't know what you're talking about.

So rather than treat you like you're intelligent and can handle actual facts, I'll play your game:


Stop talking about how many more patients you're signing up. That number is meaningless because it is the law that people sign up. That is shtick because it deflects from providing healthcare to people.

Tell me how many more doctors, or office appointment slots you're creating to address the shortage of care that was the primary purpose behind Obamacare.

Answer = ZERO.

You are exercising demand-side economics but ignoring that residency slots are primarily funded by the government.

We've talked in circles regarding this for the entire summer. I'm fully in favor of the federal government taking whatever steps are needed to increase residencies and do whatever else is needed to improve our ability to provide the care needed for our country. The ACA is a beginning, not the final step in improving health care.

(09-19-2014 01:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The primary function of Obamacare should be to deliver healthcare, not to sign people up for insurance. The left keeps wanting to talk about the latter, which has very little to do with the former

No, the primary purpose of Obamacare is to facilitate control by Big Brother over one more aspect of our lives.

By pushing more business to private enterprise insurance companies?

(09-19-2014 01:45 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The primary function of Obamacare should be to deliver healthcare, not to sign people up for insurance. The left keeps wanting to talk about the latter, which has very little to do with the former

No, the primary purpose of Obamacare is to facilitate control by Big Brother over one more aspect of our lives.

By pushing more business to private enterprise insurance companies?

Who regulates those businesses? and don't act as if it hasn't also pushed more business to government enterprise.

This is the sort of double-speak that makes you look like a shill for the left. Pushing business towards private enterprise was a concession made to sell the package... you're implying something you KNOW not to be true... that 'choice' in healthcare has been taken away for many in favor of governmental decisions and government bureaucracy and control has increased... Before you respond in an almost Pavlovian way to what I KNOW is already going through your mind... The government COULD have given choices to others without taking those choices away from everyone else. Not everything is a zero-sum game.... but they intentionally made it one.

How? Simple. Increase reimbursement for primary care and increase funding for residency slots. Even if you had left 'insurance' alone (not a requirement but making it simple) the increased supply of doctors and the incentive to become a PCP would have made the existing system more accessible to the poor. Even if collections were still only 60% of what was billed, the amount billed would have been higher.

(09-19-2014 01:45 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The primary function of Obamacare should be to deliver healthcare, not to sign people up for insurance. The left keeps wanting to talk about the latter, which has very little to do with the former

No, the primary purpose of Obamacare is to facilitate control by Big Brother over one more aspect of our lives.

By pushing more business to private enterprise insurance companies?

No, by establishing the IPAB and HCC (and incorporating the CCO from the "stimulus") and by directing various agencies to issue a plethora of new regulations.

And to be clear, none of these things were included in either Heritage or Romneycare, which the left keeps telling us are the same thing.

(09-19-2014 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:45 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The primary function of Obamacare should be to deliver healthcare, not to sign people up for insurance. The left keeps wanting to talk about the latter, which has very little to do with the former

No, the primary purpose of Obamacare is to facilitate control by Big Brother over one more aspect of our lives.

By pushing more business to private enterprise insurance companies?

Who regulates those businesses? and don't act as if it hasn't also pushed more business to government enterprise.

This is the sort of double-speak that makes you look like a shill for the left. Pushing business towards private enterprise was a concession made to sell the package... you're implying something you KNOW not to be true... that 'choice' in healthcare has been taken away for many in favor of governmental decisions and government bureaucracy and control has increased... Before you respond in an almost Pavlovian way to what I KNOW is already going through your mind... The government COULD have given choices to others without taking those choices away from everyone else. Not everything is a zero-sum game.... but they intentionally made it one.

How? Simple. Increase reimbursement for primary care and increase funding for residency slots. Even if you had left 'insurance' alone (not a requirement but making it simple) the increased supply of doctors and the incentive to become a PCP would have made the existing system more accessible to the poor. Even if collections were still only 60% of what was billed, the amount billed would have been higher.

None of this is simple. It had and has to be filtered through the political realities. That makes any "simple" solution not so simple at all.

(09-19-2014 03:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  None of this is simple. It had and has to be filtered through the political realities. That makes any "simple" solution not so simple at all.

Actually it is pretty simple if the objective is to improve health care.

What's not simple is how you screw the people while making it look like you are helping them with health care. That is difficult.

(09-19-2014 03:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 03:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  None of this is simple. It had and has to be filtered through the political realities. That makes any "simple" solution not so simple at all.

Actually it is pretty simple if the objective is to improve health care.

What's not simple is how you screw the people while making it look like you are helping them with health care. That is difficult.

There are any number of objectives for people in a position to affect anything that comes out of Washington or our state capitals. Some motives are pure, some not so much.

(09-19-2014 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So let's assume for the sake of argument that the numbers are correct and we truly have 7.3 million more insureds. Where is the incremental health care to serve them going to come from? What if the long-term impact is to reduce the economic attractiveness of being a health care provider? How do we deal with more demand and less supply?

First, you'd be assuming something that is incorrect. (I know you already know that.) Most of those on exchange plans already had insurance.

Second, the problem still is (as Hambone keeps pointing out) with no new numbers of doctors to serve more patients. Because even though there are not many new people "insured", there are millions of new ones now on the entitlement program called Medicaid.

(09-19-2014 03:21 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 03:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 03:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  None of this is simple. It had and has to be filtered through the political realities. That makes any "simple" solution not so simple at all.

Actually it is pretty simple if the objective is to improve health care.
What's not simple is how you screw the people while making it look like you are helping them with health care. That is difficult.

There are any number of objectives for people in a position to affect anything that comes out of Washington or our state capitals. Some motives are pure, some not so much.

And the not pures outnumber the pures by a wide margin.

(09-19-2014 10:27 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So let's assume for the sake of argument that the numbers are correct and we truly have 7.3 million more insureds. Where is the incremental health care to serve them going to come from? What if the long-term impact is to reduce the economic attractiveness of being a health care provider? How do we deal with more demand and less supply?

First, you'd be assuming something that is incorrect. (I know you already know that.) [b]Most of those on exchange plans already had insurance.[\b]

Second, the problem still is (as Hambone keeps pointing out) with no new numbers of doctors to serve more patients. Because even though there are not many new people "insured", there are millions of new ones now on the entitlement program called Medicaid.

This is one of the points of contention with the number of Obamacare signups. In order for the law to not collapse nearly immediately, Obamacare needed a good chunk of young unsubsidized males, who were not currently insured, to jump onto the exchanges. There has been no evidence that has happened. The evidence shows that the Obamacare customers are either heavily subsidized, or people who had insurance that were forced onto the exchange when they lost their coverage.

So we get back to one of the nasty realities of the law; everyone's insurance and medical coverage was drastically impacted in order to get the uninsured insured. But the healthy uninsured aren't signing up because they dont want to pay a single red cent for insurance coverage.

(09-20-2014 10:05 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 10:27 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So let's assume for the sake of argument that the numbers are correct and we truly have 7.3 million more insureds. Where is the incremental health care to serve them going to come from? What if the long-term impact is to reduce the economic attractiveness of being a health care provider? How do we deal with more demand and less supply?

First, you'd be assuming something that is incorrect. (I know you already know that.) [b]Most of those on exchange plans already had insurance.[\b]
Second, the problem still is (as Hambone keeps pointing out) with no new numbers of doctors to serve more patients. Because even though there are not many new people "insured", there are millions of new ones now on the entitlement program called Medicaid.

This is one of the points of contention with the number of Obamacare signups. In order for the law to not collapse nearly immediately, Obamacare needed a good chunk of young unsubsidized males, who were not currently insured, to jump onto the exchanges. There has been no evidence that has happened. The evidence shows that the Obamacare customers are either heavily subsidized, or people who had insurance that were forced onto the exchange when they lost their coverage.
So we get back to one of the nasty realities of the law; everyone's insurance and medical coverage was drastically impacted in order to get the uninsured insured. But the healthy uninsured aren't signing up because they dont want to pay a single red cent for insurance coverage.

I think the objective has been for it to crater, all along. Then the democrats step up with single-payer as the "only" solution.

As long as republicans control at least one house of congress, that doesn't happen. Optimistically, the two parties will finally get together and figure out something that would work. Like Bismarck. Which is the only thing that will work in a system our size. Pessimistically, they'll posture and pontificate and the whole health care system will collapse. We'll have third world health care. Everybody will have health insurance, but nobody will have health care. Call it the "Emperor's New Clothes" approach to health care.