Is it really true, as claimed by Jonathan Tobin at Commentary, that only 260,000 of those who’ve gained healthcare insurance since the provisions of the PPACA became operative two years ago have enrolled in the insurance exchanges rather than the expanded Medicaid program?
That’s not a very robust showing, particularly in light of the billions that have been spent.
It also would seem to throw the claim that the PPACA was creating the perception of a right to healthcare insurance and would pave the way to some better, more enlightened program into a cocked hat.
Note that I’m not making or supporting the claim, merely pointing out that they make it and looking for contradictory evidence (other than ad hominem arguments).
I do agree with the conclusion of his article: that the PPACA won’t survive. As I’ve said before I think it will be seen as a well-intentioned misstep on the path to healthcare reform and that what replaces it probably won’t resemble the pseudo-market libertarian dreams that most of the PPACA’s opponents support.
Obamacare Co-ops are fiscally failing. Enrollment numbers don’t meet CBO’s expectations and are basically unimpressive. According to the IBD article:
What is there to like about this piece of arm-twisted, deceptive legislation, passed in a singular fashion by one party when people overwhelmingly opposed it? Oh yeah, I can think of one thing — it was pushed by democrats rather than republicans. That makes it AOK to some.
As for that paltry 260,000 number who have gained healthcare through enrolling in the PPACA exchanges — it’s mind boggling if accurate! It’s also a dismal reminder of how dysfunctional and inept government programs really are when compared to private sector management.
Firm and precise numbers seem hard to come by Jan, but if you just take a step back the following appear to be the case.
Many have been forced away from their preferred doctor.
Premium increases average about 13%, a far cry from a $2500 decrease. Further, with people being forced into larger deductibles, a de facto premium increase, they are astronomical.
Half the co-ops have gone under already. The actuarial assumptions were/are and will continue to be a mess and bound for failure. The sign up penalties have no teeth, so don’t expect any change.
I don’t know if 260,000 is correct, and that seems an extreme citation, but it would be a national embarrassment. Marx Brothers stuff. With adjustments for Medicaid and more people getting insurance through post recession employment suppose the number is really 6-7MM. That’s 1/6th the stated need during marketing of the program, and a third of the 2016 estimate. That’s terrible.
This thing is a mess, and almost makes you believe it was designed to fail in a hope the “throw up your hands” default solution would be single payer. Think that’s too cynical? Did you know the Libyan consulate was attacked over a Youtube video………….
Well said, Drew. However, we seem to be in a day and age where precise numbers are either unavailable or manipulated to support our own “supreme leader’s” political agenda. The stunning part of it all is that so many people seem like Zombies, mindlessly following their party’s talking points into the sunset of even greater personal, economic and national security woes.
Better data suggest that about 30% of those signing up are buying private plans. It looks like we will have about 10 million enrolled this year, when 13 million were expected for this year. Costs remain the single biggest factor in why people are not signing up. I can see why Drew and jan would believe the other numbers, after all they believed such memorable lines as “They will greet us as liberators” and “Tax cuts will lead to growth”. Anyway, link goes to summit article and you can find original article links at that site. I would have linked to the original, but would clearly be too confusing for those who like their info spoon fed after being, hmmmm, altered.
http://blog.academyhealth.org/why-are-people-not-buying-insurance-in-the-exchanges/
Steve
You keep telling us the numbers in the public domain are bogus, steve. Yet, regulators either are, or are not, approving the increases being cited. Further, call me crazy, but half the co-ops going under isn’t exactly a sign of financial health.
I read the article posted by Steve and was not assured by the figures provided for several reasons.
First enrollment projections of 10 million were taken as baseline measurements of what would happen. When have government figures been accurate, except when doing muddled math to meet some media deadline where there are few details examining the composition of those figures?
Secondly, although the Academy Blog, presenting this survey of numbers, identifies itself as “non-partisan,” the survey itself was conducted under the auspices of the Commonwealth Fund, whose president has long term ties with the democratic party and appears especially close to the Obama Administration. In looking up Blumenthal’s bio, this is what was listed under his political activities:
Steve, there have been a string of articles, printed throughout the life of the PPACA, from the perspectives of conservatives, moderates and even a few honest liberal outlets. The news from most is that this healthcare bill is flawed and troublesome, creating so-called better access for some people at the expense of taking away or diminishing the care for a great many other people. Furthermore, it doesn’t appear to be self-sustaining with so many exchanges either in the red or going under.
Nonetheless, people like you don rose-colored glasses to cherry-pick anything boosting it’s usefulness, while throwing spitballs at anyone who respectfully sees the PPACA in a less wonderful light. It reminds me of how the liberal left chides those giving skeptical scientific evidence a bit of credence, before throwing the towel in and mindlessly enacting the economically harsh protocol demanded by AGW enthusiasts.
jan- We do have a dilemma here. There aren’t many conservatives who write about health care on a regular basis. They don’t do a lot of research. People who write on health care are mostly on the left, at least in theory. In reality, most aren’t especially partisan. The Commonwealth Fund makes its stats public. Any conservative can read them and criticize them. (Heck, conservatives could actually do their own research. LOL, as if.) They generally don’t as the Commonwealth numbers are pretty good. Read someone like Mark Pauly, probably the dean of conservative health care economics writers, and even he sues them. Anyway, in this case, their projection numbers largely came from the CBO and were projected before it all started. No one knew that there would be such resistance from red states. Dig into the numbers and you see that young people are signing up at the same rate as older adults.
BTW, I do think it would be great if conservatives became interested in enough in health care to do significant amounts of their own research. Why don’t you encourage them.
Steve
So you are saying, steve, that the rate increases are not happening? What are sate regulators approving? And the co-op failures are not true? They are just shutting their doors not at all, or for shits and giggles?
We seem to have bottom line results at odds with hand waving explanations.
Drew– Which rates and over what time period? The conservative media reports high rate increases for some county, and everyone (on the right) assumes those are true for the whole country. Again, as I have said before, there were predictions for major increases the last 2 years, and we had almost zero increases for both. I have yet to see national numbers, but do expect an increase. Non-ACA insurers are reporting larger increases this year, as has the Federal Employees program.
The co-ops? Republicans cut funding to them, then act surprised some failed. I am shocked. Anyway, besides the unexpected loss of funding, I suspect we are seeing that it is hard to enter new insurance markets. It was assumed that the co-ops could compete with existing large insurers. I would never make that assumption. There are reasons most states have just one or two large insurers. Those don’t go away by starting co-ops. (One more reason I always find the conservative idea of selling across state lines both amusing and naive.)
Steve
We seem to have bottom line results at odds with hand waving explanations.
It is called consensus, and we don’t need none of your stinkin’ fancy objective methodology. Screw you, and screw that f’ing Italian.
If it was good enough during the medieval ages, it is good enough during the post-enlightenment ages.
” stinkin’ fancy objective methodology”
When Drew (or jan) next shows some objective methodology it will be the first time (on health care).
Steve