Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (2 Viewers)

[tommyGunZ]

Oh...and this "right wing nut job" was for the socialized option that was initially presented over this garbage AND agree with about 95% of what BFS has said in this thread. You should probably update your notebook TGunz I look forward to being called a "liberal shill" when the GOP outdoes the Dems in the stupidity department during midterms. Snooger, I feel your pain GB

when people open their eyes and realize no party as a whole has your interests in mind then, and only then, can we actually get things done.The Politicians who have joined nolabels.org are a good start.

All of those members of no labels belong to a political party.

 

[matttyl]

OK now I'm totally confused after reading the last several posts. Does this 10 million (or 9.5 million) include 26 and unders who get insurance through their parents, or doesn't it? And if so, and if we remove ALL dependents, how many new people are actually paying for ACA? And is this relevant?

I doubt we'll know. We won't get detailed numbers on what they are counting. If they are counting like I think they are, my cousin who's 23 and on her parents' insurance as of 2013 will be counted as "new" because she can remain on her parents' insurance at 24 when she wouldn't have been allowed to before.

Also, how many people new to Medicaid would have gone on it even without ACA. They'll all be counted as new.

LOL. Trying to minimize the ACA Medicaid expansion as well?

Keep grasping, you'll get a straw someday.

So you think every new Medicaid recipient is due to ACA?Don't know why I bother asking, you never answer anyway.

Why answer, you're just going to dispute any number or fact that doesn't fit your narrative.

Lots, and I mean LOTS of folks in this thread were dropping some harsh criticisms last fall regarding initial enrollee numbers and the website rollout, Any of those same folks willing to give credit where credit is due and admit that hitting the 7M is a damn fine accomplishment after the fumbled rollout?

Simple fact is, the ACA isn't the disaster you anti-ACAers were predicting. Own your ####.

Sure, I'll own it. If the 7.1m number is accurate, it's a damn fine accomplishment given the initial enrollment and it's screw up. Personally, I don't think that number is accurate, nor will all of them remain insured for the entire year knowing they can drop it and just sign back up 1/1 of next year. But I honestly didn't think they would hit 7m, and I honestly don't think they did.

 

[The Commish]

Why answer, you're just going to dispute any number or fact that doesn't fit your narrative.

Lots, and I mean LOTS of folks in this thread were dropping some harsh criticisms last fall regarding initial enrollee numbers and the website rollout, Any of those same folks willing to give credit where credit is due and admit that hitting the 7M is a damn fine accomplishment after the fumbled rollout?

Simple fact is, the ACA isn't the disaster you anti-ACAers were predicting. Own your ####.

People like myself were harsh on initial numbers because of vagueness and no detail as to what/who were included in those numbers. The same holds true now. Heck, all I was trying to do was understand if they actually hit the mark. I still haven't gotten an answer to that. There's no way to know if those are all legitimately "new" people or not.

 

[snogger]

Oh...and this "right wing nut job" was for the socialized option that was initially presented over this garbage AND agree with about 95% of what BFS has said in this thread. You should probably update your notebook TGunz I look forward to being called a "liberal shill" when the GOP outdoes the Dems in the stupidity department during midterms. Snooger, I feel your pain GB

when people open their eyes and realize no party as a whole has your interests in mind then, and only then, can we actually get things done.The Politicians who have joined nolabels.org are a good start.

All of those members of no labels belong to a political party.

Wow.. really??? Thanks!!! without your post I would have never known..

OF COURSE they belong to a party.... true independents have no chance in this political climate..

But those that have joined know that voting down party lines is what has gotten this country into the it is.

All those that have joined nolabels.org are working across party lines to get things done.

 

[fourd]

In the end, so far as public opinion goes, however many people signed up by March 31 really doesn't matter. It's still, IMO, going to come down to two things: first, what are the rates and duductibles going to be in 2015? If the doomsayers are correct and we see an average increase of 30-40%, Obamacare is going to be viewed as a disaster no matter what else happens. On the other hand, if the increases are only slight or otherwise negligible, then all of the negative talk will be largely forgotten or limited to right wing circles (like Benghazi).

The second item is the employer mandate, coming at the end of this year, I believe. Guys like Tommyboy are already predicting a mass disaster with thousands of newly unemployed, large rate increases, huge deductibles- just lots and lots of pain for everybody. Again, if that happens, then whatever public support was building for Obamacare will disappear. If it doesn't happen, then conservatives will be seen as fear mongering once more.

I'd really like this thread to discuss the obstacles with the employer mandate, because I really don't understand them. I know there is fear that employers are going to drop coverage as a benefit, but what's their motive to do so? Is it because the "penalty" would be more affordable(read cheaper) than providing the benefit? Is there more to it?

It's estimated several million will lose their employer coverage over the next few years. The reasons will vary but for smaller companies the simple fact is they don't like dealing with it. For under 50 employees it will be pretty easy as they aren't subject to any penalty. For slightly larger companies it will be different, but some will find it easier to just pay the penalty.

For large companies, in particular those with cadillac plans, the move has already started to see what needs to be done to avoid the cadillac tax. For most I don't think you will see them drop coverage but you will see much greater shifting of costs to the employee in the form of higher deductibles and copays. There will continue to be a movement to private exchanges. There will be disruption, and certainly more than with the individual market, in part because it will affect way more people and let's face it, people don't like change. Add in the rules are more complicated with the employer mandate.

But who knows what the final results will be. The biggest supporters of the law are now about to be affected, and their lobbying efforts will continue to ramp up to levels well beyond where they stand currently.

 

[jamny]

Why answer, you're just going to dispute any number or fact that doesn't fit your narrative.

Lots, and I mean LOTS of folks in this thread were dropping some harsh criticisms last fall regarding initial enrollee numbers and the website rollout, Any of those same folks willing to give credit where credit is due and admit that hitting the 7M is a damn fine accomplishment after the fumbled rollout?

Simple fact is, the ACA isn't the disaster you anti-ACAers were predicting. Own your ####.

People like myself were harsh on initial numbers because of vagueness and no detail as to what/who were included in those numbers. The same holds true now. Heck, all I was trying to do was understand if they actually hit the mark. I still haven't gotten an answer to that. There's no way to know if those are all legitimately "new" people or not.

I usually sit back and read what is generally an informative thread. All I'm trying to understand at this point is what these numbers really mean. All it takes is to question the numbers to be labeled anti-ACA by those who blindly cheer the most recent result. I really don't understand how anyone doesn't question it and just takes it at face value.

 

[3 out of 5]

The 3M number is not right.

Sommers, intentionally or unintentionally, cherry-picked the 2010 baseline that would make his comparisons as flattering as possible. He compared the third quarter of that year, when 49.8 percent had private coverage, with the fourth quarter of 2011, when 58.8 percent did. The full-year averages for 2010 and 2011 were 51.0 and 56.2 percent, respectively; for the first 9 months of 2013, the proportion with private coverage was 58.1 percent.

If you simply use 2008 as your baseline—before the effects of the recession—you still get a positive effect, but a much smaller one. In 2008, the proportion of young adults with private coverage was 55.8 percent; if you assume the entirety of the change in private coverage from 2008 to 2013 is due to Obamacare, you get a coverage expansion of between 869,000 (on a 2008 population base) and approximately 1.04 million (on a 2013 population base). That’s not nothing, but it’s 2 million less than what the Obama administration is claiming.

.

.

.

Based on the best evidence we have, the under-26 mandate is responsible for at most around 900,000 to 1,000,000 newly covered individuals. In all likelihood, the real figure is smaller than that. What we do know is that there is no real evidence for the 3 million figure, and any credible reporter who says otherwise is being snookered by the White House.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Repubs should make a new push to repeal the law of the land.... they'd find public support now I think...good idea but poor policy and poor execution hastened to build his legacy.

 

[snogger]

In the end, so far as public opinion goes, however many people signed up by March 31 really doesn't matter. It's still, IMO, going to come down to two things: first, what are the rates and duductibles going to be in 2015? If the doomsayers are correct and we see an average increase of 30-40%, Obamacare is going to be viewed as a disaster no matter what else happens. On the other hand, if the increases are only slight or otherwise negligible, then all of the negative talk will be largely forgotten or limited to right wing circles (like Benghazi).

The second item is the employer mandate, coming at the end of this year, I believe. Guys like Tommyboy are already predicting a mass disaster with thousands of newly unemployed, large rate increases, huge deductibles- just lots and lots of pain for everybody. Again, if that happens, then whatever public support was building for Obamacare will disappear. If it doesn't happen, then conservatives will be seen as fear mongering once more.

I'd really like this thread to discuss the obstacles with the employer mandate, because I really don't understand them. I know there is fear that employers are going to drop coverage as a benefit, but what's their motive to do so? Is it because the "penalty" would be more affordable(read cheaper) than providing the benefit? Is there more to it?

It's estimated several million will lose their employer coverage over the next few years. The reasons will vary but for smaller companies the simple fact is they don't like dealing with it. For under 50 employees it will be pretty easy as they aren't subject to any penalty. For slightly larger companies it will be different, but some will find it easier to just pay the penalty.

For large companies, in particular those with cadillac plans, the move has already started to see what needs to be done to avoid the cadillac tax. For most I don't think you will see them drop coverage but you will see much greater shifting of costs to the employee in the form of higher deductibles and copays. There will continue to be a movement to private exchanges. There will be disruption, and certainly more than with the individual market, in part because it will affect way more people and let's face it, people don't like change. Add in the rules are more complicated with the employer mandate.

But who knows what the final results will be. The biggest supporters of the law are now about to be affected, and their lobbying efforts will continue to ramp up to levels well beyond where they stand currently.

It has already begun.. The Insurance companies are asking for the Administration to make changes to the law that allow consumers to purchase lower premium options( which of course means higher deductibles and co-pays which they don't need to worry about collecting) and also asking that consumer be able to Choose what coverage they want.. imagine that, giving consumers a choice

David Cordani, CEO of insurer Cigna, said his company has raised the issue of potential rate increases with the Obama administration and has suggestions for changes to the program that could help mitigate sharp spikes, including providing new lower-cost options to consumers and giving them a greater choice over which health benefits are covered.

He described the discussion as part of an ongoing, carefully crafted dialogue with the White House that has been built in recent years.

"There's a risk of finger pointing," Cordani said. "If rock-throwing transpires, the party that will probably lose in the equation is the individual. That will be a failure. To me, that's a failure of leadership of all the parties involved: states, insurers, the administration. And we're trying to proactively engage in that conversation now."

Almost sounds like a threat... Allow us to make these changes, or the rates will increase dramatically and give the Right even more fire power in the November elections..

 

[matttyl]

The 3M number is not right.

Sommers, intentionally or unintentionally, cherry-picked the 2010 baseline that would make his comparisons as flattering as possible. He compared the third quarter of that year, when 49.8 percent had private coverage, with the fourth quarter of 2011, when 58.8 percent did. The full-year averages for 2010 and 2011 were 51.0 and 56.2 percent, respectively; for the first 9 months of 2013, the proportion with private coverage was 58.1 percent.

If you simply use 2008 as your baseline—before the effects of the recession—you still get a positive effect, but a much smaller one. In 2008, the proportion of young adults with private coverage was 55.8 percent; if you assume the entirety of the change in private coverage from 2008 to 2013 is due to Obamacare, you get a coverage expansion of between 869,000 (on a 2008 population base) and approximately 1.04 million (on a 2013 population base). That’s not nothing, but it’s 2 million less than what the Obama administration is claiming.

.

.

.

Based on the best evidence we have, the under-26 mandate is responsible for at most around 900,000 to 1,000,000 newly covered individuals. In all likelihood, the real figure is smaller than that. What we do know is that there is no real evidence for the 3 million figure, and any credible reporter who says otherwise is being snookered by the White House.

Yup, called that one. And I think common sense called it first.

 

[The Commish]

Why answer, you're just going to dispute any number or fact that doesn't fit your narrative.

Lots, and I mean LOTS of folks in this thread were dropping some harsh criticisms last fall regarding initial enrollee numbers and the website rollout, Any of those same folks willing to give credit where credit is due and admit that hitting the 7M is a damn fine accomplishment after the fumbled rollout?

Simple fact is, the ACA isn't the disaster you anti-ACAers were predicting. Own your ####.

People like myself were harsh on initial numbers because of vagueness and no detail as to what/who were included in those numbers. The same holds true now. Heck, all I was trying to do was understand if they actually hit the mark. I still haven't gotten an answer to that. There's no way to know if those are all legitimately "new" people or not.

I usually sit back and read what is generally an informative thread. All I'm trying to understand at this point is what these numbers really mean. All it takes is to question the numbers to be labeled anti-ACA by those who blindly cheer the most recent result. I really don't understand how anyone doesn't question it and just takes it at face value.

Some folks like playing politics rather than grown up

 

[matttyl]

Repubs should make a new push to repeal the law of the land.... they'd find public support now I think...good idea but poor policy and poor execution hastened to build his legacy.

While you might think this is a good idea, and maybe long term it could be - this is a classic example of "once the toothpaste is out of the tube." If you repeal the law, what happens to the 7.1m apparently new on exchange policies and the other 9m apparently off exchange ones? They can't just be canceled overnight.

If this thing is ever to be repealed - it will either be dismantled over years piece by piece, or we all go right into single payer all at once.

 

[The Commish]

Another question....what's the push to get rid of "cadillac plans"? Aren't those just really expensive plans that have really low/non-existent copays/deductibles etc? What is wrong with that approach if the participant wants to take it?

 

[The Commish]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

 

[matttyl]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

Forbes could possibly be, but common sense isn't. I mean c'mon man! The entire population of Americans aged 23-26 is just a shade over 12m. You're telling me that roughly a quarter of that demographic now has coverage, which isn't Medicaid by the way, and that they otherwise wouldn't have without the ACA (via either employer coverage, individual coverage, government coverage, coverage through a school or spouse)? If so, you'd obviously see a huge swing in the % of insured/uninsured in that age bracket between 2008 and 2012, right? So why don't we? I'm not saying the number is 0, but it's no where near 3m. If you believe the 3m number is accurate, I have some great beach front property for you.....

And if 3m is wrong, then obviously 9.5m is wrong.

 

[The Commish]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

Forbes could possibly be, but common sense isn't. I mean c'mon man! The entire population of Americans aged 23-26 is just a shade over 12m. You're telling me that roughly a quarter of that demographic now has coverage, which isn't Medicaid by the way, and that they otherwise wouldn't have without the ACA (via either employer coverage, individual coverage, government coverage, coverage through a school or spouse)? If so, you'd obviously see a huge swing in the % of insured/uninsured in that age bracket between 2008 and 2012, right? So why don't we? I'm not saying the number is 0, but it's no where near 3m. If you believe the 3m number is accurate, I have some great beach front property for you.....

And if 3m is wrong, then obviously 9.5m is wrong.

Well, for one, I'd like to know WHY it's garbage, and I don't disagree with the philosophical aspects of your post.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

Forbes could possibly be, but common sense isn't. I mean c'mon man! The entire population of Americans aged 23-26 is just a shade over 12m. You're telling me that roughly a quarter of that demographic now has coverage, which isn't Medicaid by the way, and that they otherwise wouldn't have without the ACA (via either employer coverage, individual coverage, government coverage, coverage through a school or spouse)? If so, you'd obviously see a huge swing in the % of insured/uninsured in that age bracket between 2008 and 2012, right? So why don't we? I'm not saying the number is 0, but it's no where near 3m. If you believe the 3m number is accurate, I have some great beach front property for you.....And if 3m is wrong, then obviously 9.5m is wrong.

9.5 number was on the 30th, so there were 2 full days left to sign up, hence the rounding to 10m.

 

[The Commish]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

 

[Sarnoff]

I'd go as far to say that almost half the people out there are of below-average intelligence.

Like around 47%?

Higher.

 

[matttyl]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

Forbes could possibly be, but common sense isn't. I mean c'mon man! The entire population of Americans aged 23-26 is just a shade over 12m. You're telling me that roughly a quarter of that demographic now has coverage, which isn't Medicaid by the way, and that they otherwise wouldn't have without the ACA (via either employer coverage, individual coverage, government coverage, coverage through a school or spouse)? If so, you'd obviously see a huge swing in the % of insured/uninsured in that age bracket between 2008 and 2012, right? So why don't we? I'm not saying the number is 0, but it's no where near 3m. If you believe the 3m number is accurate, I have some great beach front property for you.....And if 3m is wrong, then obviously 9.5m is wrong.

9.5 number was on the 30th, so there were 2 full days left to sign up, hence the rounding to 10m.

Where did I say anything about 10m? Why even bring that up? Did you read the linked article? They are claiming (as I have been for a few days) that the 3m age 26 and under now covered number is bogus. And if the 3m number is bogus, then obviously the 9.5m "newly enrolled" number is bogus.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

Forbes could possibly be, but common sense isn't. I mean c'mon man! The entire population of Americans aged 23-26 is just a shade over 12m. You're telling me that roughly a quarter of that demographic now has coverage, which isn't Medicaid by the way, and that they otherwise wouldn't have without the ACA (via either employer coverage, individual coverage, government coverage, coverage through a school or spouse)? If so, you'd obviously see a huge swing in the % of insured/uninsured in that age bracket between 2008 and 2012, right? So why don't we? I'm not saying the number is 0, but it's no where near 3m. If you believe the 3m number is accurate, I have some great beach front property for you.....And if 3m is wrong, then obviously 9.5m is wrong.

9.5 number was on the 30th, so there were 2 full days left to sign up, hence the rounding to 10m.

Where did I say anything about 10m? Why even bring that up? Did you read the linked article? They are claiming (as I have been for a few days) that the 3m age 26 and under now covered number is bogus. And if the 3m number is bogus, then obviously the 9.5m "newly enrolled" number is bogus.

Just pointing out where the ~ 10M number is coming from. You said in an earlier post "the ~ 10M is really 9.5M" so I felt the need to clarify.

 

[matttyl]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

Forbes could possibly be, but common sense isn't. I mean c'mon man! The entire population of Americans aged 23-26 is just a shade over 12m. You're telling me that roughly a quarter of that demographic now has coverage, which isn't Medicaid by the way, and that they otherwise wouldn't have without the ACA (via either employer coverage, individual coverage, government coverage, coverage through a school or spouse)? If so, you'd obviously see a huge swing in the % of insured/uninsured in that age bracket between 2008 and 2012, right? So why don't we? I'm not saying the number is 0, but it's no where near 3m. If you believe the 3m number is accurate, I have some great beach front property for you.....And if 3m is wrong, then obviously 9.5m is wrong.

9.5 number was on the 30th, so there were 2 full days left to sign up, hence the rounding to 10m.

Where did I say anything about 10m? Why even bring that up? Did you read the linked article? They are claiming (as I have been for a few days) that the 3m age 26 and under now covered number is bogus. And if the 3m number is bogus, then obviously the 9.5m "newly enrolled" number is bogus.

Just pointing out where the ~ 10M number is coming from. You said in an earlier post "the ~ 10M is really 9.5M" so I felt the need to clarify.

Sounds fine, but why do it as a reply to the above? The above is talking about the linked article saying that the 3m "sub 26ers" isn't an accurate number, and is likely less than 1m. So the 9.5m is really 7.5m if that's to be believed....and the 7.1 number is to believed....and so forth. I questioned the 3m number as soon as it came out, looks like I was onto something.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Outside of this forum, there are some EXTREMELY smart people who are very opposed to Obamacare.

Of course there are. There's an awful lot of stuff about Obamacare to criticize. But none of those smart people are saying, "Wait, is it 7 million or 10 million LOL!!!", as if they can't distinguish between the (estimated) gross number of individuals who've signed up through the exchanges, and the (estimated) net change in the number of individuals who now have coverage of some kind.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

You've been given the numbers, and you're trying to figure out reasons to discount them. That's fine.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The administration and pro-ACA people will count anyone and everyone in the most favorable possible light.

The GOP and anti-ACA people will discount anyone and everyone in the most negative possible light.

Possibly, but I believe the numbers being discussed here have mostly been from the CBO or from RAND, who fit into neither of those categories.

 

[jamny]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

You've been given the numbers, and you're trying to figure out reasons to discount them. That's fine.

As if you wouldn't be doing the same thing if it came in at 5 million.

 

[StrikeS2k]

And this big "surge" at the deadline, we all get that those are people who didn't want insurance, didn't need insurance, and are only signing up because they think they have to, right? If they wanted or needed this, they would have signed up before.

As regards this argument- yeah, so what? The whole point of Obamacare is to pay for pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford healthcare by forcing those who dont have healthcare to buy it. You can argue against this idea all you want, but if people who didnt want healthcare before now feel compelled to buy it, then the plan is working as designed.

this is NOT the whole point of Obamacare. Quit f'ing rewriting history.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

You've been given the numbers, and you're trying to figure out reasons to discount them. That's fine.

As if you wouldn't be doing the same thing if it came in at 5 million.

No, if it came in at 5M, I'd be pointing out that the law helped 5M, and pointing to the reasons why only 5M signed up. I wouldn't be disputing the actual data. That your conspiracy theory shtick.

 

[matttyl]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

You've been given the numbers, and you're trying to figure out reasons to discount them. That's fine.

As if you wouldn't be doing the same thing if it came in at 5 million.

No, if it came in at 5M, I'd be pointing out that the law helped 5M, and pointing to the reasons why only 5M signed up. I wouldn't be disputing the actual data. That your conspiracy theory shtick.

Tommy, do you honestly believe the "actual data" to be accurate? Honestly? Specifically, do you really believe that 3m sub 26ers now have coverage and otherwise wouldn't have because of the ACA? I've posted "actual data" showing that to very unlikely based on the population size of the demographic affected (post 13004), and post 13028 has a link that also shows "actual data" from the US Census Bureau that shows the % insured in the 19 to 25 age group is pretty much unchanged from 2008 to 2012. So I ask you, if 3m are now insured and otherwise wouldn't have been, and all are from that same age range, wouldn't we see a drastic increase in the % insured from 2008 to 2012 in that age group? So, why didn't we?

 

[Rich Conway]

Another question....what's the push to get rid of "cadillac plans"? Aren't those just really expensive plans that have really low/non-existent copays/deductibles etc? What is wrong with that approach if the participant wants to take it?

One problem with them is that they're not taxed like income. So if an employer gives me $10K of health coverage, I actually get $10K of health coverage. If that same employer instead gives me $10K in cash, I first pay $2K to the government, and can only afford $8K of health coverage. This significantly reduces the ability for consumers to choose which health plans, coverage, and coverage provider they want.

 

[matttyl]

Oh, and that 3m figure that's roughly a third of the 9.5m number.....yeah, it's nearly 2 years old.....

http://aspe.hhs.gov/aspe/gaininginsurance/rb.pdf

 

[Rich Conway]

The administration and pro-ACA people will count anyone and everyone in the most favorable possible light.

The GOP and anti-ACA people will discount anyone and everyone in the most negative possible light.

Possibly, but I believe the numbers being discussed here have mostly been from the CBO or from RAND, who fit into neither of those categories.

Yeah, see, I disagree regarding the CBO. While the CBO may not be pro-ACA or anti-ACA, the assumptions which they have been given to use were given to them by people who are pro or anti ACA.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

You've been given the numbers, and you're trying to figure out reasons to discount them. That's fine.

As if you wouldn't be doing the same thing if it came in at 5 million.

No, if it came in at 5M, I'd be pointing out that the law helped 5M, and pointing to the reasons why only 5M signed up. I wouldn't be disputing the actual data. That your conspiracy theory shtick.

Tommy, do you honestly believe the "actual data" to be accurate? Honestly? Specifically, do you really believe that 3m sub 26ers now have coverage and otherwise wouldn't have because of the ACA? I've posted "actual data" showing that to very unlikely based on the population size of the demographic affected (post 13004), and post 13028 has a link that also shows "actual data" from the US Census Bureau that shows the % insured in the 19 to 25 age group is pretty much unchanged from 2008 to 2012. So I ask you, if 3m are now insured and otherwise wouldn't have been, and all are from that same age range, wouldn't we see a drastic increase in the % insured from 2008 to 2012 in that age group? So, why didn't we?

Yes, I believe the "actual data" is far more correct than any of the slicing and dicing you and the anti-ACAers are doing.

I don't know why there hasn't been a bigger bump in the uninsured in that age group between 2008 and 2012. I'm guessing there is absolutely an answer for it, but if I'm being honest I'll admit that I'm not going to go back to US Census Bureau data, review all of the caveats, then create my own projects for 2013 data, then try to figure out how much of that data prior to 2013 was for 23-25 year olds as opposed to 19-21 years olds, then figure out reasons why the data may be skewed, then.....

It's an exercise in silliness. If the number isn't 9.5M, or 10M, the official data will be exposed for being wrong. The folks collecting and disseminating that data have a far bigger interest in that data being correct than matttyl from the FFA. And although you seem like a decent guy, let's be honest, you've been predicting death spirals and "more uninsured b/c of the ACA than insured" for over a year now. You have credibility with the doom and gloomers who are anti-ACA, but let's be honest, you've been wrong about the ACA thus far.

 

[jamny]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

You've been given the numbers, and you're trying to figure out reasons to discount them. That's fine.

As if you wouldn't be doing the same thing if it came in at 5 million.

No, if it came in at 5M, I'd be pointing out that the law helped 5M, and pointing to the reasons why only 5M signed up. I wouldn't be disputing the actual data. That your conspiracy theory shtick.

Aren't the bolded the same thing?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

You've been given the numbers, and you're trying to figure out reasons to discount them. That's fine.

As if you wouldn't be doing the same thing if it came in at 5 million.

No, if it came in at 5M, I'd be pointing out that the law helped 5M, and pointing to the reasons why only 5M signed up. I wouldn't be disputing the actual data. That your conspiracy theory shtick.

Aren't the bolded the same thing?

No. You guys are suggesting that the data is wrong. If it were reversed, I'd trust the data, but I'd also explain why I thought the number fell short of projections (website, anti-ACA groups, Fox propaganda, etc.)

I'd also point out that in the long run, the exact number doesn't matter. 7M via the exchanges was simply a talking point, and exceeding or falling short of that number was ever really the vitality point for the ACA.

 

[The Commish]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

You've been given the numbers, and you're trying to figure out reasons to discount them. That's fine.

I've been given number and am trying to figure out what they mean. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative of trying to put everyone in nice little boxes so you can process what's going on.. To me, it's important that our politicians aren't lying to us. Willfully going along with what these morons say has gotten us where we're at today. Somehow I'm the bad guy for asking for more than elementary soundbites.

 

[The Commish]

Another question....what's the push to get rid of "cadillac plans"? Aren't those just really expensive plans that have really low/non-existent copays/deductibles etc? What is wrong with that approach if the participant wants to take it?

One problem with them is that they're not taxed like income. So if an employer gives me $10K of health coverage, I actually get $10K of health coverage. If that same employer instead gives me $10K in cash, I first pay $2K to the government, and can only afford $8K of health coverage. This significantly reduces the ability for consumers to choose which health plans, coverage, and coverage provider they want.

So they're a problem to the government, not the individual?

 

[jamny]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

You've been given the numbers, and you're trying to figure out reasons to discount them. That's fine.

As if you wouldn't be doing the same thing if it came in at 5 million.

No, if it came in at 5M, I'd be pointing out that the law helped 5M, and pointing to the reasons why only 5M signed up. I wouldn't be disputing the actual data. That your conspiracy theory shtick.

Aren't the bolded the same thing?

No. You guys are suggesting that the data is wrong. If it were reversed, I'd trust the data, but I'd also explain why I thought the number fell short of projections (website, anti-ACA groups, Fox propaganda, etc.)

I'd also point out that in the long run, the exact number doesn't matter. 7M via the exchanges was simply a talking point, and exceeding or falling short of that number was ever really the vitality point for the ACA.

Oh, so you'd be looking for excuses instead of actually trying to analyze the actual data. I'm not disputing the 7 million number, I'm just trying to figure out how they got to that figure and what is included in it.

 

[The Commish]

Haven't we been told that Forbes is garbage and unreliable?

If you want doom and gloom Obama news, Avik Roy is your guy, and has been for years.

not really interested in "news"....just want facts....something neither seems to be providing and I'm trying to figure out why. None of you have been much help in figuring this stuff out (except for BFS)

You've been given the numbers, and you're trying to figure out reasons to discount them. That's fine.

As if you wouldn't be doing the same thing if it came in at 5 million.

No, if it came in at 5M, I'd be pointing out that the law helped 5M, and pointing to the reasons why only 5M signed up. I wouldn't be disputing the actual data. That your conspiracy theory shtick.

Aren't the bolded the same thing?

No. You guys are suggesting that the data is wrong. If it were reversed, I'd trust the data, but I'd also explain why I thought the number fell short of projections (website, anti-ACA groups, Fox propaganda, etc.)

I'd also point out that in the long run, the exact number doesn't matter. 7M via the exchanges was simply a talking point, and exceeding or falling short of that number was ever really the vitality point for the ACA.

Not all of us are. Most of us are trying to understand what makes up the 10 million and if that jives with the promise we were given at the beginning of this whole thing. That should be a relatively easy task to accomplish yet all we get are these vague descriptions/qualifications. I feel like I'm trying to get the truth out of my 4 year old.

 

[Rich Conway]

Another question....what's the push to get rid of "cadillac plans"? Aren't those just really expensive plans that have really low/non-existent copays/deductibles etc? What is wrong with that approach if the participant wants to take it?

One problem with them is that they're not taxed like income. So if an employer gives me $10K of health coverage, I actually get $10K of health coverage. If that same employer instead gives me $10K in cash, I first pay $2K to the government, and can only afford $8K of health coverage. This significantly reduces the ability for consumers to choose which health plans, coverage, and coverage provider they want.

So they're a problem to the government, not the individual?

I think artificially limits on consumer choice are a significant problem to the consumer.

 

[matttyl]

No, if it came in at 5M, I'd be pointing out that the law helped 5M, and pointing to the reasons why only 5M signed up. I wouldn't be disputing the actual data. That your conspiracy theory shtick.

Tommy, do you honestly believe the "actual data" to be accurate? Honestly? Specifically, do you really believe that 3m sub 26ers now have coverage and otherwise wouldn't have because of the ACA? I've posted "actual data" showing that to very unlikely based on the population size of the demographic affected (post 13004), and post 13028 has a link that also shows "actual data" from the US Census Bureau that shows the % insured in the 19 to 25 age group is pretty much unchanged from 2008 to 2012. So I ask you, if 3m are now insured and otherwise wouldn't have been, and all are from that same age range, wouldn't we see a drastic increase in the % insured from 2008 to 2012 in that age group? So, why didn't we?

Yes, I believe the "actual data" is far more correct than any of the slicing and dicing you and the anti-ACAers are doing.

I don't know why there hasn't been a bigger bump in the uninsured in that age group between 2008 and 2012. I'm guessing there is absolutely an answer for it, but if I'm being honest I'll admit that I'm not going to go back to US Census Bureau data, review all of the caveats, then create my own projects for 2013 data, then try to figure out how much of that data prior to 2013 was for 23-25 year olds as opposed to 19-21 years olds, then figure out reasons why the data may be skewed, then.....

It's an exercise in silliness. If the number isn't 9.5M, or 10M, the official data will be exposed for being wrong. The folks collecting and disseminating that data have a far bigger interest in that data being correct than matttyl from the FFA. And although you seem like a decent guy, let's be honest, you've been predicting death spirals and "more uninsured b/c of the ACA than insured" for over a year now. You have credibility with the doom and gloomers who are anti-ACA, but let's be honest, you've been wrong about the ACA thus far.

I'm not sure what "slicing and dicing" you're talking about. The fact is that there are only about 12m people in the US in the age range that would have been affected by the "age 26" rule. As of 2008, about 60% of them were insured according to the US Census Bureau report. So, are you telling me that of the remaining 4.8m - 3m now have coverage and otherwise wouldn't have because of the ACA?!

You believe that's "far more correct" than common sense? If those 3m are now covered, why isn't it shown in the % insured in that age range today? I don't call that slicing and dicing, I call it common sense. If you want to see actual "slicing and dicing", read the report I linked to in post 13053 about how that 3m number was arrived at....all the way back in 2012! If you don't consider that slicing and dicing, but consider the facts I've presented as being so - then I honestly have to question your intellect (more so).

As for my "prediction of death spirals", you understand that they take years to materialize, right? I mean, I explained that quite a while ago. We haven't yet seen the 2015 rates, have we? We've only seen rates for one year, the first year. Where they go from here is anyone's guess. My guess is up, quickly.

 

[The Commish]

Another question....what's the push to get rid of "cadillac plans"? Aren't those just really expensive plans that have really low/non-existent copays/deductibles etc? What is wrong with that approach if the participant wants to take it?

One problem with them is that they're not taxed like income. So if an employer gives me $10K of health coverage, I actually get $10K of health coverage. If that same employer instead gives me $10K in cash, I first pay $2K to the government, and can only afford $8K of health coverage. This significantly reduces the ability for consumers to choose which health plans, coverage, and coverage provider they want.

So they're a problem to the government, not the individual?

I think artificially limits on consumer choice are a significant problem to the consumer.

I find that hard to believe given all the smaller networks being created by ACA. I guess I shouldn't. After all it IS the government.

ETA: But what about these plans limits the consumer? Because the company isn't working with a mega insurance company that's nationally known and nationally accepted?

 

[jamny]

and ftr, I'm not part of the repeal and replace crowd. ACA is here, so let's make it work. It's just that when so much of it is politicized and there is reason the believe that things aren't going as well as publicized, everyone should be demanding answers to what should be easy questions. I didn't jump all over them for the delays, except when it was clearly done for political reasons like pushing it past elections, but if they are done to help make it work it's fine by me. I even favor the mandate at this point since this thing will need all the help it can get to be paid for. Like so much else in this political climate, there should be more cooperation so Obamacare doesn't fail and really hurt so many aspects of the country.

 

[The Commish]

No, if it came in at 5M, I'd be pointing out that the law helped 5M, and pointing to the reasons why only 5M signed up. I wouldn't be disputing the actual data. That your conspiracy theory shtick.

Tommy, do you honestly believe the "actual data" to be accurate? Honestly? Specifically, do you really believe that 3m sub 26ers now have coverage and otherwise wouldn't have because of the ACA? I've posted "actual data" showing that to very unlikely based on the population size of the demographic affected (post 13004), and post 13028 has a link that also shows "actual data" from the US Census Bureau that shows the % insured in the 19 to 25 age group is pretty much unchanged from 2008 to 2012. So I ask you, if 3m are now insured and otherwise wouldn't have been, and all are from that same age range, wouldn't we see a drastic increase in the % insured from 2008 to 2012 in that age group? So, why didn't we?

Yes, I believe the "actual data" is far more correct than any of the slicing and dicing you and the anti-ACAers are doing.

I don't know why there hasn't been a bigger bump in the uninsured in that age group between 2008 and 2012. I'm guessing there is absolutely an answer for it, but if I'm being honest I'll admit that I'm not going to go back to US Census Bureau data, review all of the caveats, then create my own projects for 2013 data, then try to figure out how much of that data prior to 2013 was for 23-25 year olds as opposed to 19-21 years olds, then figure out reasons why the data may be skewed, then.....

It's an exercise in silliness. If the number isn't 9.5M, or 10M, the official data will be exposed for being wrong. The folks collecting and disseminating that data have a far bigger interest in that data being correct than matttyl from the FFA. And although you seem like a decent guy, let's be honest, you've been predicting death spirals and "more uninsured b/c of the ACA than insured" for over a year now. You have credibility with the doom and gloomers who are anti-ACA, but let's be honest, you've been wrong about the ACA thus far.

I'm not sure what "slicing and dicing" you're talking about. The fact is that there are only about 12m people in the US in the age range that would have been affected by the "age 26" rule. As of 2008, about 60% of them were insured according to the US Census Bureau report. So, are you telling me that of the remaining 4.8m - 3m now have coverage and otherwise wouldn't have because of the ACA?!

You believe that's "far more correct" than common sense? If those 3m are now covered, why isn't it shown in the % insured in that age range today? I don't call that slicing and dicing, I call it common sense. If you want to see actual "slicing and dicing", read the report I linked to in post 13053 about how that 3m number was arrived at....all the way back in 2012! If you don't consider that slicing and dicing, but consider the facts I've presented as being so - then I honestly have to question your intellect (more so).

As for my "prediction of death spirals", you understand that they take years to materialize, right? I mean, I explained that quite a while ago. We haven't yet seen the 2015 rates, have we? We've only seen rates for one year, the first year. Where they go from here is anyone's guess. My guess is up, quickly.

It's quite the strawman he's built...let him go. It's comedy gold that he's taking issue with us asking what they really used in the 10 million number, yet if it were lower he'd be wanting to know how they came to the lower number and the "reasons" it wasn't higher

 

[The Commish]

and ftr, I'm not part of the repeal and replace crowd. ACA is here, so let's make it work. It's just that when so much of it is politicized and there is reason the believe that things aren't going as well as publicized, everyone should be demanding answers to what should be easy questions. I didn't jump all over them for the delays, except when it was clearly done for political reasons like pushing it past elections, but if they are done to help make it work it's fine by me. I even favor the mandate at this point since this thing will need all the help it can get to be paid for. Like so much else in this political climate, there should be more cooperation so Obamacare doesn't fail and really hurt so many aspects of the country.

Only I did jump all over them for their terrible implementation of this whole thing. There's no excuse for that regardless of what party you're a part of. It's embarrassing.

 

[MaxThreshold]

and ftr, I'm not part of the repeal and replace crowd. ACA is here, so let's make it work. It's just that when so much of it is politicized and there is reason the believe that things aren't going as well as publicized, everyone should be demanding answers to what should be easy questions. I didn't jump all over them for the delays, except when it was clearly done for political reasons like pushing it past elections, but if they are done to help make it work it's fine by me. I even favor the mandate at this point since this thing will need all the help it can get to be paid for. Like so much else in this political climate, there should be more cooperation so Obamacare doesn't fail and really hurt so many aspects of the country.

Only I did jump all over them for their terrible implementation of this whole thing. There's no excuse for that regardless of what party you're a part of. It's embarrassing.

I'd be all for this if:

• It doesn't cost me (personally) or the government an arm and a leg. I'm not adverse to paying slightly more, but thousands of dollars more like everyone is getting hit with is ridiculous.
• If I do pay more, I don't expect my deductibles to triple either. Or even double for that matter.
• It doesn't reduce the quality of my care, whenever I may need it

I'm not convinced it can meet any of those simple requests.

 

[matttyl]

HAHAHA, now I see where the "3 million young adults" number came from!! The White House's own website!!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/relief-for-americans-and-businesses

"Coverage for Young Adults: Under the Affordable Care Act, young adults under age 26 can stay on their parent’s health insurance plan until age 26 – a change that has already allowed 3.1 million young adults to get health coverage and given their families peace of mind."

That DOES NOT MEAN they wouldn't have been covered otherwise, that just means that 3.1 (I'm sure rounded up) million young adults have taken advantage of this provision and had their coverage provided in this specific way!! If you click on it, it will even tell you can do this if not living with mom and dad (on their own), eligible for their own employer based plan (working), and/or married (eligible for coverage with spouse).

Again, no idea why anyone would have believed that number - and if that number is wrong, then so is 9.5m/10m.

MORE -

The 3.1 million figure comes from a June 2012 report from the Department of Health and Human Services. The slacker mandate went into effect in late September 2010. Using data from the Center for Disease Control's National Health Interview Survey, HHS estimated that the number of 19-25-year-olds with insurance was about 64.4 percent in the third quarter of 2010 and was 74.8 percent in the last quarter of 2011. HHS took that increase of 10.4 percent and multiplied it with the number of 19-25-year-olds in the U.S. in 2011—about 29.7 million according to the Census Bureau—which yielded 3.1 million.

…

There are other reasons to be suspicious of the 3.1 million figure. For starters, it doesn’t jibe with Census Bureau numbers. The Census Bureau shows that from 2009, the year before the slacker mandate began, to 2012, the number of uninsured 18-24-year-olds declined by about 976,000. But not all of those went onto their parents’ insurance. For that age group, Medicaid enrollment grew 271,000 and employer-based coverage increased 447,000 during that same period. That would mean that those newly insured by joining their parents’ coverage were at most 258,000.

 

[timschochet]

And this big "surge" at the deadline, we all get that those are people who didn't want insurance, didn't need insurance, and are only signing up because they think they have to, right? If they wanted or needed this, they would have signed up before.

As regards this argument- yeah, so what? The whole point of Obamacare is to pay for pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford healthcare by forcing those who dont have healthcare to buy it. You can argue against this idea all you want, but if people who didnt want healthcare before now feel compelled to buy it, then the plan is working as designed.

this is NOT the whole point of Obamacare. Quit f'ing rewriting history.

Excuse me?

During Obama's 2008 campaign and thereafter, he stated a zillion times that health care needed to be reformed in this country so that those with pre-existing conditions could get access, and so that those who couldn't afford it could obtain it. The way to do this, and still keep costs low, while protecting the marketplace, was to compel everyone to purchase healthcare. That was the plan and now they're executing it.

 

[Joe T]

Have to agree with Strike here. Paying for pre-existing conditions is not the WHOLE point of Obamacare.