What Kind Of Dent Has Obamacare Made In The Ranks Of The Uninsured?
Howard J. Peterson writes at Philly.com that the number is about 10 percent:
On Thursday, the Obama administration announced that enrollment had reached six million. Using McKinsey's findings of 14 percent gaining new coverage, only 900,000 previously uninsured individuals will have acquired insurance as a result of the exchanges.So, there remain nearly 35 million uninsured citizens. No additional enrollment in Obamacare for 2014 was scheduled after March 31, though the administration extended the deadline last week. The penalty for uninsured individuals has been delayed until 2016, reducing the motivation for additional sign-ups. The employer mandate has also been moved until 2016.
Given this analysis we reasonably can conclude:
The first four years of Obamacare have led to solving about 10 percent of the problem of uninsured citizens.
It is unlikely that any material reduction in the number of uninsured citizens will occur during the next three years under the current policies.
The first conclusion follows reasonably from the analysis. The
second one is pure guess and is clearly not based on the analysis.
Ron at March 30, 2014 10:05 PM
The second one is pure guess and is clearly not based on the analysis.
Posted by: Ron at March 30, 2014 10:05 PM
Really? Explain why. Extra credit for showing your work....
What exactly will motivate those who haven't signed up already to sign up in the future?
Isab at March 31, 2014 12:33 AM
I have a professional musician friend who's just been assessed $230 per month for this health scare plan.
Please explain how this, with a deductible of thousands of dollars, itself designed to prevent paying him, is a smart choice for a 26-year-old man.
Radwaste at March 31, 2014 1:16 AM
Health Insurance, especially expensive health insurance with high deductibles, is not healthcare. When you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter.
MarkD at March 31, 2014 5:26 AM
Using Peterson's own numbers, the math does not add up. If we start with the widely published figure of 40 million involuntarily uninsured, and 900,000 of them have acquired insurance via Obamacare, 39.1M uninsured remain, or 97% of the total.
Now: I've said previously that I don't believe the 40M number. I think the number was more like 4M. So if 900,000 of them now have coverage, that's 23% who now have coverage. That's not bad, but it's not a rousing triumph, and it's still the case of a hugely expensive, broad-brush solution to a point problem.
The other thing that should not be missed is the statement of 14% of the sign-ups being new coverage. That means that 86% of the sign-ups had insurance previously. I've seen estimates that about 80% of the sign-ups are eligilble for the subsidies, and likely all of the rest are people who were forced out of their existing coverage by the Obamacare mandates. So nearly all of these 86% are signing up either because they have no choice, or because they're getting free swag. Almost no one is doing it because they think Obamacare is a good idea, or because the policies are competitive on the open market.
The thing not to be missed in all this is that Obamcare is, and always was intended to be, a wealth redistribution program. Provisioning of health care is at best a secondary goal.
Cousin Dave at March 31, 2014 7:21 AM
Isab:
I don't know what will motivate those people. More relevant,
neither does Peterson. He presented some facts, came to one valid
conclusion and one opinion. The opinion may even be right, but it
does not automatically follow from the facts as presented. If he
stated, "I think it is unlikely...", I'd have given him a pass.
Stated as an assertion, "It is unlikely...", then I need to see some
supporting data or arguments.
As for what will motivate people, that's tough to guess. Would any
of us have been able to predict the popularity of cat videos and
Cheezburger meme?
Ron at March 31, 2014 7:28 AM
Another couple of questions:
How many were actually "uninsurable" prior to the [un]ACA?
How many of the 6M actually have paid a premium yet?
How many are actually paying full freight and not being subsidized by the government?
Jim P. at March 31, 2014 8:03 AM
We have to sign up still as we're losing our insurance at the end of April. We qualify for no subsidies and would need to be a family of 12 for that to happen. We will now be paying a lot more for less coverage as well. We're planning to buy the cheapest possible policy we can that allows me to keep my specialist and the kids' pediatrician. We're trying to determine coverage and cost of my Lovenox prescription though. We figured out with the price estimators and the past several years of itemized statements from our insurance company that from the cheapest plan offered to the most expensive we'd still end up spending within $200 of the total for each anyway. The low or no deductible plan just charges more in other categories or don't apply things to max out of pocket that they would in other plans. I'd rather save the extra $400 a month and buy the cheapest instead of most expensive offering. I am horribly pissed that we are required to buy pediatric dental coverage though. It's a huge waste of money for something that will rarely, if ever be used, has a defined amount they'll cover, and has a pricey deductible to pay first. It is much cheaper to pay cash if you need something, but you're automatically enrolled and charged for dental when you enroll kids in insurance. The cheapest available to us is $30 a month per child and right now all of my kids are under the age of 3 when a dentist will actually start doing anything for them. They don't do cleanings or anything else if you are under 3. It's rare to find a dentist, pediatric or otherwise, who will. Heck, my infant has no teeth so why the hell does she need dental insurance, let alone have years to go before being old enough to get services?!!
BunnyGirl at March 31, 2014 11:26 AM
As for what will motivate people, that's tough to guess. Would any
of us have been able to predict the popularity of cat videos and
Cheezburger meme?
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2014 7:28 AM
You're seriously comparing "free internet content" to something that costs hundreds of dollars a month, with almost no real coverage?
You think people are that stupid?
Isab at March 31, 2014 1:15 PM
"to something that costs hundreds of dollars a month, with almost no
real coverage?"
Extreme hyperbole doesn't help your case, either. See
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Cartoons/2014/March/My-Experience-With-Obamacare.aspx
for the take of someone who did sign up.
Ron at March 31, 2014 4:03 PM
Did you notice the word subsidy in that little cartoon you pointed to?
Take a guess who is paying that subsidy? It isn't her or her husband. It is coming out of the pockets of the 51% of gainfully employed workers just like the Obama Phone comes out of our pockets.
Unless they are paying out of their pockets for the full price the can go F themselves.
I don't consider that a success when you are doing wealth redistribution.
Jim P. at March 31, 2014 4:21 PM
I just got insurance this month, after not having it for 10 years. Yes the government is subsidizing 1/2 my premium.
Assholio at April 1, 2014 6:05 PM
Leave a comment