Mitch McConnell's Obamacare Woes

[MattusMaximus]

It seems that those lefty socialists in Kentucky really like Obamacare... and it's causing trouble for Sen. Mitch McConnell

And, unlike Obama, McConnell is up for re-election...

Mitch McConnell's big ObamaCare conundrum

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hates ObamaCare, which isn't too surprising, given that he's an elected Republican politician. And considering the health care law's miserable rollout and the Obama administration's painfully laborious attempts to patch up the problems, unapologetic opposition to the Affordable Care Act would seem to be a political no-brainer in the run-up to McConnell's 2014 re-election bid.

Yet Kentucky may be one of the few places where support for ObamaCare is actually a winning argument come next year.

The state's exchange marketplace has been one of ObamaCare's early bright spots. And continued success, coupled with a turnaround for the law at the federal level, could make ObamaCare relatively popular there over the coming months.

That would put McConnell, facing challengers on both his right and left, in a tricky bind. ...

And, lest some of the doom and gloom crowd rush in to spout off about how it's only one state, recent news seems to indicate that enrollment in both the state and federal exchanges is speeding up, set to easily outpace last month's enrollment numbers.

I wonder how crow tastes? Perhaps I'll ask Mitch McConnell

 

[PhantomWolf]

I hope Allison kicks his butt.

 

[Dumb All Over]

I wonder how crow tastes?

C'mon Matt. Given some of the Obamacare threads you've championed of late, you know exactly how crow tastes.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wonder how crow tastes? Perhaps I'll ask Mitch McConnell

Small problem with the Kentucky numbers: less than 1 in 5 enrollees are in the 18-34 age bracket. But the plan needs more than 1 in 3 enrollees to be in that young age bracket.

It's not just the number of people who sign up, Mattus. Who those people are matters too. The plan needs lots of young healthy people in order to subsidize the old and sick. If it doesn't get enough of them, then it's adverse selection death spiral time. The ratio could still shift, but while we're on bird metaphors, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

 

[Upchurch]

Small problem with the Kentucky numbers: less than 1 in 5 enrollees are in the 18-34 age bracket. But the plan needs more than 1 in 3 enrollees to be in that young age bracket.

It's not just the number of people who sign up, Mattus. Who those people are matters too. The plan needs lots of young healthy people in order to subsidize the old and sick. If it doesn't get enough of them, then it's adverse selection death spiral time. The ratio could still shift, but while we're on bird metaphors, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

MattusMaximus's point is that the ACA is not as wildly unpopular in Kentucky, at least, as the conservative entertainment echo chamber would lead you to believe, not that it is financially untenable.

 

[Ziggurat]

MattusMaximus's point is that the ACA is not as wildly unpopular in Kentucky, at least, as the conservative entertainment echo chamber would lead you to believe, not that it is financially untenable.

Except that the enrollment numbers don't demonstrate popularity (the entire point of the mandate was to force people to do what they don't want to do), and if it's not financially tenable, there's no chance it can remain popular.

 

[Upchurch]

Except that the enrollment numbers don't demonstrate popularity (the entire point of the mandate was to force people to do what they don't want to do)

The article argues that early enrollment prior to the mandate deadline does indicate popularity. If not popularity, then a desire to get insurance beyond the fact that the mandate requires it of them. Do you disagree with that argument?

and if it's not financially tenable, there's no chance it can remain popular.

Well, that's a matter of prognostication. Regardless, young healthy people will still be paying into the system, even if they do not abide by the mandate.

 

[Ziggurat]

The article argues that early enrollment prior to the mandate deadline does indicate popularity. If not popularity, then a desire to get insurance beyond the fact that the mandate requires it of them. Do you disagree with that argument?

Yes, I do disagree. Given the well-publicized problems with the system, people may also be enrolling to try to ensure that they get the process completed on time (and enrollment doesn't complete the process, BTW). But more fundamentally than that, these numbers still aren't very high. Even if we assume that everyone signing up just loves the ACA (which, again, we don't know), that tells us nothing about the popularity of the ACA among people who aren't going through the exchanges. And even if they were exceeding the pre-rollout projections (they aren't), the number of enrollees would still be a minority of the entire population.

Low enrollment at this point doesn't prove unpopularity, but neither does high enrollment prove popularity.

 

[plague311]

Out of curiousity, isn't it true that kids get to stay on their parents healthcare plan later into their adulthood? If that's true that isn't requiring 18 to...let's say 26 year olds to sign up be stupid anyway? Is that basically making it destined to failure?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Out of curiousity, isn't it true that kids get to stay on their parents healthcare plan later into their adulthood? If that's true that isn't requiring 18 to...let's say 26 year olds to sign up be stupid anyway? Is that basically making it destined to failure?

No, because they would still be the in the system. Some states already had similar regulations and that alone did not cause a collapse of the local insurance systems. Insurance can still charge more for more people on a family plan. The options provided by my employer for instance have prices by the number of people on the plan. The profits would not be as high as say an individual child buying insurance on the individual market but group negotiated family plans are still in general profitable.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, I do disagree. Given the well-publicized problems with the system, people may also be enrolling to try to ensure that they get the process completed on time (and enrollment doesn't complete the process, BTW).

The "the well-publicized problems with the system" you are referring to has to do with the federal exchange. Kentucky, according to the OP article, has it's own state-level exchange. It doesn't have the problems you are referring to.

Low enrollment at this point doesn't prove unpopularity, but neither does high enrollment prove popularity.

Yes, there are other metrics, as well. The article mentions the 40k Kentuckians who have signed up for the expansion of Medicaid, also a part of the ACA.

And even if they were exceeding the pre-rollout projections (they aren't)

This link from the OP article claims differently.

...the number of enrollees would still be a minority of the entire population.

In an odd juxtaposition to recent discussions, the total population of the state doesn't matter. People who already have good health insurance plans don't need to enroll in the exchange. A quick calculation based on the numbers given in the article and the population of Kentucky in wikipedia, it's a percentage point or two lower than the national average, which is still the vast majority.

What matters is the percentage of the population of those Kentuckians who have no or insufficient health insurance. Those are the ones who need to obtain health insurance policies and those are the ones most likely to do so through the state exchange.

 

[plague311]

No, because they would still be the in the system. Some states already had similar regulations and that alone did not cause a collapse of the local insurance systems. Insurance can still charge more for more people on a family plan. The options provided by my employer for instance have prices by the number of people on the plan. The profits would not be as high as say an individual child buying insurance on the individual market but group negotiated family plans are still in general profitable.

That makes perfect sense, thank you very much.

 

[Ziggurat]

What matters is the percentage of the population of those Kentuckians who have no or insufficient health insurance. Those are the ones who need to obtain health insurance policies and those are the ones most likely to do so through the state exchange.

That's not what matters to McConnell's re-election prospects, which is what the OP made claims about.

 

[Upchurch]

That's not what matters to McConnell's re-election prospects, which is what the OP made claims about.

The success of the ACA doesn't matter to McConnell's re-election prospects? Do tell.

 

[MattusMaximus]

That's not what matters to McConnell's re-election prospects, which is what the OP made claims about.

Really? Do you live in KY?

I grew up there. I have plenty of friends and relatives who live there.

It does matter, and McConnell's on the losing side of the issue.