Administration releases ObamaCare figures...

[Clocker]

...and the picture ain't pretty.

Businessweek.com (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-13/whos-buying-obamacare-in-three-charts) reports the following summary of healthcare.gov enrollment data (shown in graphs at the web site for those who get tired from moving your lips when you read):

1. The administration target was that 38% of those enrolling would be in the critical 18-34 y.o. demographic. The actual number reported (but not verified) was 24%. These are the people who are supposed to subsidize the program through their artificially high premiums.

2. 79% of enrollees qualified for a subsidy. So only 1 out of every 5 people are paying their fair share, and somehow that guy is going to subsidize the other 4. The article reaffirms the fact that a family of 4 with a household income of up to $96,000 can qualify for a subsidy.

3. 54% of enrollees are women. Since men and women pay the same rates under ObamaCare, and since women collect more healthcare benefits then men, we again have a situation where the minority is subsidizing the majority.

I would love to see an analysis of this data by a real, non-government actuary. It certainly doesn't look sustainable on its face. While about 2 million people have enrolled in ObamaCare, an additional 1.6 million were enrolled in Medicaid during the process. Guess who is going to be paying for them.

[Robert Goren]

Business week is hardly an unbiased source on Obama care. But then again, I doubt if there is an unbiased source on Obama care. Everybody is biased one way or the other on it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Business week is hardly an unbiased source on Obama care. But then again, I doubt if there is an unbiased source on Obama care. Everybody is biased one way or the other on it.

How about the NY Times? They report the same data.

[Clocker]

Business week is hardly an unbiased source on Obama care.

So Business Week is falsifying the government data they are reporting?

[HUSKER55]

give it up

when was the last time you seen a democrate admit to failure without blaming the source or george bush

[Robert Goren]

So Business Week is falsifying the government data they are reporting? Business Week like everybody is cherry picking bits and pieces of government data to prove their point of view of their readers as is the NY Times. Even that government data is long away way from being complete.

[ThinkingAlways]

So, Robert, what metrics would YOU like to see to substantiate the success of Obamacare?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Business Week like everybody is cherry picking bits and pieces of government data to prove their point of view of their readers as is the NY Times. Even that government data is long away way from being complete.

The NY Times has a biased against Obama? RG - please stop. You just sound foolish.

[classhandicapper]

The thing that worries me is that these guys are so corrupt and power hungry, rather than admit failure and fix things if it falls apart, they will cook the numbers (or spin them) and then get the money to fund it in some back door way by charging the costs to something else.

You have to realize what we are dealing with here. IMO, we are not talking about friendly (or even passionate) intellectual disagreements that get resolved when the evidence comes in.

We are dealing with politicians (and I'm not limiting it to the left).

IMO they are almost all corrupt, immoral, self centered, arrogant, power hungry, willing to sell out the country etc.. for personal or political gain. They also remain in denial about their failed ideas no matter how strong the evidence against them.

[mostpost]

...and the picture ain't pretty.

Businessweek.com (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-13/whos-buying-obamacare-in-three-charts) reports the following summary of healthcare.gov enrollment data (shown in graphs at the web site for those who get tired from moving your lips when you read):

1. The administration target was that 38% of those enrolling would be in the critical 18-34 y.o. demographic. The actual number reported (but not verified) was 24%. These are the people who are supposed to subsidize the program through their artificially high premiums.
The percentage of 18-34 year olds signing up is comparable to the percentage which signed up at a similar point in time in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts there was a surge in younger sign ups nearer the deadline. The game is nine innings and the runs scored in all nine innings count.

2. 79% of enrollees qualified for a subsidy. So only 1 out of every 5 people are paying their fair share, and somehow that guy is going to subsidize the other 4. The article reaffirms the fact that a family of 4 with a household income of up to $96,000 can qualify for a subsidy.
You know that this is a false statement. At least I hope you do. One person does not subsidize four. The subsidies do not come out of the premiums, they come out of tax revenues.

The actual figures are probably more like 10 or 15 people subsidize one.

3. 54% of enrollees are women. Since men and women pay the same rates under ObamaCare, and since women collect more healthcare benefits then men, we again have a situation where the minority is subsidizing the majority.
Men earn a lot more than women. For the same work, for the same job, women are underpaid compared to men. It hardly seems unfair to me that we should pay a little more.

I would love to see an analysis of this data by a real, non-government actuary. It certainly doesn't look sustainable on its face. While about 2 million people have enrolled in ObamaCare, an additional 1.6 million were enrolled in Medicaid during the process. Guess who is going to be paying for them.
You just keep hoping. In spite of all the problems with the website(s), signups are accelerating. According to Business Week 2.1 million have signed up for the private plans. Of those 1.8 million signed up in December. If we maintain that rate-I think it will improve over the next three months-we will sign up a total of 7.5 milllion. Well in excess of the 7 million that was targeted.

True we are running behind the hoped for 38% of sign ups by young people, but I will wait until later before I start to panic.

As far as medicaid is concerned, I am happy to subsidize someones medicaid so I don't have to subsidize their emergency room visits. I am happy to subsidize their treatment for a cold so I don't have to subsidize their treatment for pnumonia.

[Robert Goren]

The NY Times has a biased against Obama? RG - please stop. You just sound foolish.Obama care has barely started and is a long way from be fully implemented. Lets wait until it is. The numbers are skewed right now because of the web site problems. As far as I am concerned, it is already a success because it stopped things like what happened to me and people from being dropped from their insurance.

[mostpost]

The NY Times has a biased against Obama? RG - please stop. You just sound foolish.
That is not what RG is saying. He is saying that all these organizations have some bias; for Obama, against Obama; liberal, conservative. Whatever.

What he said was obvious. I do not see how anyone could not get it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...As far as medicaid is concerned, I am happy to subsidize someones medicaid so I don't have to subsidize their emergency room visits....

Didn't I just read a study from something fairly reputable even to you that this theory probably doesn't hold water?

I'll look for it, but they tracked this behavior with a group and I'm pretty sure that it turned out that those people with coverage wound up in emergency MORE often seeking basic treatment.

Edited:

Here ya go...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicaid-expansion-increased-emergency-room-visits-study/

[johnhannibalsmith]

Obama care has barely started and is a long way from be fully implemented. Lets wait until it is. The numbers are skewed right now because of the web site problems. As far as I am concerned, it is already a success because it stopped things like what happened to me and people from being dropped from their insurance.

Like you said, it's too early to draw conclusions. What exactly is the penalty to insurance companies if they **** over their customers? Are they going to imprison the CEO?

[Robert Goren]

The health care system is changing. There are clinics to handle smaller things like colds opening in supermarkets and drug stores. This will cut down on ER visits. Obama care makes more these clinics possible. Even doctor offices are beginning to offer same day service if you see a Nurse Practitioner or a Physician's Assistant.

[Robert Goren]

Like you said, it's too early to draw conclusions. What exactly is the penalty to insurance companies if they **** over their customers? Are they going to imprison the CEO? As much as I would like that, that isn't going to happen. The answer is the company will be fined and the CEO will be elected governor of Florida.:rolleyes:

[Clocker]

The percentage of 18-34 year olds signing up is comparable to the percentage which signed up at a similar point in time in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts there was a surge in younger sign ups nearer the deadline. The game is nine innings and the runs scored in all nine innings count.


I assume that Mass. was reporting reliable numbers. The administration is reporting web site sign ups as having insurance. At the extreme, the state of Connecticut says that only 8% of enrollees have paid premiums and have insurance. Nationally, insurance companies are reporting that 60 percent of new Obamacare enrollees have paid their first premiums. Source. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/14/connecticut-enrollment-delays-highlight-obamacare-problem-people-not-paying-their-premiums-could-burden-taxpayers/)

So only 1 out of every 5 people are paying their fair share, and somehow that guy is going to subsidize the other 4. The article reaffirms the fact that a family of 4 with a household income of up to $96,000 can qualify for a subsidy.
You know that this is a false statement. At least I hope you do. One person does not subsidize four. The subsidies do not come out of the premiums, they come out of tax revenues.

Wow, your sarcasm detector does work from time to time. ;)

But the absurdity of a family making nearly $100K and getting a subsidy is fact.

Men earn a lot more than women. For the same work, for the same job, women are underpaid compared to men. It hardly seems unfair to me that we should pay a little more.

I am not sure how to read that. It is either the prize non sequitur of the month, or a subtle rephrasing of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Women should pay less for stuff because they make less money? Why not men and women pumps at the gas station, cheaper for women? Or a 10% surcharge on men at the supermarket checkout?

[JustRalph]

And with that, Goren and Mosties take their footballs and arm n arm walk off the field together headed for home.

Leaving the rest of the players wondering why they even allow these guys to play........

[Saratoga_Mike]

You just keep hoping. In spite of all the problems with the website(s), signups are accelerating. According to Business Week 2.1 million have signed up for the private plans. Of those 1.8 million signed up in December. If we maintain that rate-I think it will improve over the next three months-we will sign up a total of 7.5 milllion. Well in excess of the 7 million that was targeted.


How much do you want to bet on this??? I readily concede December sign-ups were much stronger, but the 1.8 mm trend isn't going to carry into spring. I'm somewhat surprised sign-ups haven't been better - typically people love a govt freebie.

[JustRalph]

Overheard in the grocery line

"How in the hell am I supposed to pay for my Obamacare at that price? "

"Call mom and see if I can get back on hers"

I am assuming these two ladies were sisters.

[Clocker]

Overheard in the grocery line

"How in the hell am I supposed to pay for my Obamacare at that price? "

"Call mom and see if I can get back on hers"

I am assuming these two ladies were sisters.

Deja vu.

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

"She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said.

[mostpost]

And with that, Goren and Mosties take their footballs and arm n arm walk off the field together headed for home.

Leaving the rest of the players wondering why they even allow these guys to play........
Which is exactly how we feel about you.

[mostpost]

I assume that Mass. was reporting reliable numbers. The administration is reporting web site sign ups as having insurance. At the extreme, the state of Connecticut says that only 8% of enrollees have paid premiums and have insurance. Nationally, insurance companies are reporting that 60 percent of new Obamacare enrollees have paid their first premiums.

The important number is how many of those who have not paid are past due. Insurance companies have given extensions to January 31 because of problems to their websites and to the government websites. The fact that some one has not paid a bill that is not yet due does not mean the person has decided not to purchase the service. Particularly with online bill paying where you can pay a bill electronically and you can set up automatic payments ahead of time.

My cable and internet bill is due on the 27th of each month. I am sure that no one thinks I am cancelling those services because the bill is not paid on the 26th.

[HUSKER55]

but you can cancel cable to pay for obamacare and not visa versa. In fact obamacare will send you a late fee of $2000

[mostpost]

Men earn a lot more than women. For the same work, for the same job, women are underpaid compared to men. It hardly seems unfair to me that we should pay a little more.


I am not sure how to read that. It is either the prize non sequitur of the month, or a subtle rephrasing of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Women should pay less for stuff because they make less money? Why not men and women pumps at the gas station, cheaper for women? Or a 10% surcharge on men at the supermarket checkout.
Not because they make less money; because they get paid less for the same work. There is a difference.

in any case, they are not paying less. And any particular woman is not getting any more benefits than any particular man.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Not because they make less money; because they get paid less for the same work. There is a difference.

in any case, they are not paying less. And any particular woman is not getting any more benefits than any particular man.

Most,

I believe you've said in the past most companies are very, very focused on making money (almost greedy, not sure if you've used that exact word). With that in mind, if a large company can hire women to do the same exact work as men at a lower cost, why don't they do so? Labor accounts for 50% to 70% of the costs of many companies. If your claim is correct, what are these greedy companies thinking? They should really hire more women, no? Yet, I've never heard any such claim.

[Clocker]

Not because they make less money; because they get paid less for the same work. There is a difference.


If that is a problem, how can you possibly argue that it is up to the health insurance industry to correct it?

in any case, they are not paying less. And any particular woman is not getting any more benefits than any particular man.

Correct, men and women are both getting all the "free" birth control and reproductive healthcare benefits they need. No man is ever going to be denied needed abortifacients under ObamaCare.

[classhandicapper]

The health care system is changing. There are clinics to handle smaller things like colds opening in supermarkets and drug stores. This will cut down on ER visits. Obama care makes more these clinics possible. Even doctor offices are beginning to offer same day service if you see a Nurse Practitioner or a Physician's Assistant.


The "market" was already starting to provide these things BEFORE Obamacare was passed and would have eventually opened as many of them as made economic sense in the locations that made economic sense.

Once the government gets involved, you may get more of them and faster, but many will not make economic sense because they are based on the desires of the planners and not the economics. That's the problem with central planning. You get plenty of whatever the central planners like and not much of whatever they don't like, but it often doesn't match the economics so you waste precious limited resources.

There is (or at least was before Obamacare) also a movement towards boutique medical centers that don't take any insurance at all. The idea was that if they didn't have to deal with insurance companies or the government, they could provide many services for "cash" massively cheaper. It would be kind of like it was when I was a kid. You might have hospitalization and some other catastrophic coverage, but all doctors visits, medication, blood tests, xrays and other common services were for cash and pretty much everyone could afford it (I was kind of poor and we managed).

I read a couple of articles about it and it seemed like a lot of elite doctors were moving or considering moving in that direction, but now I'm not so sure.

[Clocker]

I read a couple of articles about it and it seemed like a lot of elite doctors were moving or considering moving in that direction, but now I'm not so sure.

Indications I have seen show a growing trend toward consolidation and vertical integration. Private practice doctors, solo or group practitioners, don't want to spend more and more of their time running a regulated business and less time doing medicine. So they are selling their practices, usually to insurance companies or private hospitals, and becoming employees. Insurance companies are also buying private hospitals.

In a heavily regulated industry, as healthcare is becoming, a vertically integrated provider will be much more efficient on the business side as well as on the care side. If you get sick, your insurance company will send you to its doctor and then to its hospital, and will have all of your records in one place and all of the regulatory compliance handled by a single central system.