This sounds to me like a problem for the PPACA:
Early signals suggest the majority of the 2.2 million people who sought to enroll in private insurance through new marketplaces through Dec. 28 were previously covered elsewhere, raising questions about how swiftly this part of the health overhaul will be able to make a significant dent in the number of uninsured.
Insurers, brokers and consultants estimate at least two-thirds of those consumers previously bought their own coverage or were enrolled in employer-backed plans.
The data, based on surveys of enrollees, are preliminary. But insurers say the tally of newly insured consumers is falling short of their expectations, a worrying trend for an industry looking to the law to expand the ranks of its customers.
The article goes on to mention that Michigan has about 1.2 million uninsured people of which it expected about a third to enroll for healthcare insurance under the PPACA. At this point only about 76,000 have enrolled and most of those had previously been covered.
For quite a while I’ve been saying that it was too early to tell whether the PPACA was accomplishing its objectives or not. We’re now four months into a six month open enrollment and that’s beginning to ring a little hollow.
The PPACA isn’t free. Billions have already been spent and more will continue to be spent. I would have thought that making a considerable dent in the number of people without healthcare insurance would have been the minimum objective. It’s too expensive for a vanity project.
Too expensive? Hell no! We are a great country that can afford to squander thousands of lives and trillions in treasure to fight lost wars for over ten years.
Well, that’s not a good sign.
“Truth” has become a shape-shifter kind of word, mutating at partisan will into anything it wants to be. A case in point revolves around so many aspects of the PPACA. Almost every negative, troubling statistic or revelation, concerning the viability of this law, is met with the opposite side saying just the opposite — from the bureaucrats in the Obama administration, who seemed pleased with the ‘progress’ seen in the roll-out, to the insurance companies, who appear content with their future profit margins, especially in light of government guarantees (bail-outs) stuffed into the law blunting financial risks for 3 years, until the law is firmly set in stone. Ironically, these same insurance companies were initially painted as the ‘bad guys,’ used to ratchet up the need for government HC intervention, who have now become allies in the protective arms of the government. Ah, the musical chairs syndrome, accompanied by the lyrics of ‘profit.’
In the meantime, there continue to be dualing stories about how safe the internet sites really are. The government has recently given it clearance, saying the site has pass all their security checks. However, other independent ‘hackers’ have described the security as anything but safe, respectfully concluding that such testimony is wrong and illustrative of more lies of Obamacare.
Also according to a recent McKinsey & Co. survey, only 11% of the sign-up figure submitted by the government were from the previously uninsured demographic. I’m sure there will be many different interpretations of this number as well — all the way from great! to poor.
Honestly, is anybody still this naive? The insurance companies were always their allies. Who do you think suggested to the Obama people to vilify the insurance companies? Getting one’s feelings hurt is not a big concern of any executive.
It’s too expensive for a vanity project.
It’s like you haven’t been paying attention, Schuler. Nothing is too expensive as long as it makes certain people feel good about themselves. Especially if someone else is picking up the tab.