• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

Unabogie said:
Those people would think that the distinction between people who got onto "expanded Medicaid" vs. ordinary Medicaid is an important one.
Click to expand...

It is an important one if you're trying to evaluate the effects of the law, since millions of people got ordinary Medicaid before the law was ever passed and would have continued to do so even if it hadn't been. And you claimed you were evaluating the effects of the law, just with the wrong facts. Evidently getting the facts right isn't important to you.
 
It looks like enrollment has tapered off a bit after December's surge. I bet Feb and March will be key months.
 
Fudbucker said:
It looks like enrollment has tapered off a bit after December's surge. I bet Feb and March will be key months.
Click to expand...

Yup, I predicted as much earlier in some of these ACA threads. I, too, expect things to slow down a bit until February. Deadlines are funny that way.
 
How does this care for the homeless? And the millions out of work? The unemployed veterens? Wait a minute...he's too busy golfing to think about that.
 
rcfieldz said:
How does this care for the homeless? And the millions out of work? The unemployed veterens? Wait a minute...he's too busy golfing to think about that.
Click to expand...

You're on to something. How does Obamacare solve global warming? Or send humans to Mars? Or get us off of foreign oil? How does it remove that abomination known as the "designated hitter rule"? Or make sure Jennifer Jason Leigh finally gets a goddamned Oscar? Or invents a child proof cap that's easy for everyone else to open? Or a self-replicating AI that won't enslave us?

Is Obama simply History's Greatest Monster???
 
rcfieldz said:
How does this care for the homeless? And the millions out of work? The unemployed veterens? Wait a minute...he's too busy golfing to think about that.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's all taken care of; they all get shipped off to the death panels...

... oh, wait. You were being serious :rolleyes:
 
Update on private enrollment: 3.05 million+ as of today

That's 42.5% of the CBO projected enrollment by 3/31/14.

And if you take a look at the graph, you will see a comparison of the real private enrollments as compared to the CBO projection. A quick analysis of the two trend lines shows that, if current enrollment trends continue, then actual private enrollment will exceed the CBO projected enrollment before the end of February.

In addition, a similar analysis seems to indicate that the goal of 7,000,000+ private enrollments in the ACA will come around the second week of March, assuming current enrollment rates continue.

Despite earlier gloom and doom claims from critics, it seems as if the ACA is well on its way to meeting its projected goals for enrollment.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Update on private enrollment: 3.05 million+ as of today

That's 42.5% of the CBO projected enrollment by 3/31/14.

And if you take a look at the graph, you will see a comparison of the real private enrollments as compared to the CBO projection. A quick analysis of the two trend lines shows that, if current enrollment trends continue, then actual private enrollment will exceed the CBO projected enrollment before the end of February.

In addition, a similar analysis seems to indicate that the goal of 7,000,000+ private enrollments in the ACA will come around the second week of March, assuming current enrollment rates continue.

Despite earlier gloom and doom claims from critics, it seems as if the ACA is well on its way to meeting its projected goals for enrollment.
Click to expand...
Are there numbers showing how many of these are people that were previously un-insured?
 
DGM said:
Are there numbers showing how many of these are people that were previously un-insured?
Click to expand...

Good question, and it's one to which I don't know the answer. If you dig through the Obamacaresignups.net website, you might be able to find the info.
 
If this whole thing works out and ends up either...

Saving me money on health insurance premiums, or...

...getting me better coverage for about the same amount...

...then color me pleasantly surprised.

So far, the site shows me slightly better plans, but starting at roughly triple the premium I now pay. But, for now, I can keep my current plan, so no net impact.

It would be so cool if, on average, Americans end up with lower premiums (as promised) or better coverage (as promised). We'll know one way or the other in a few years.

Again, color me skeptical - but hopeful.
 
Well here's an update on my ACA info.
New policy cost me 45.00 with a subsidy of 290.00. No deductible!
It'll go up next year, because I worked little this year.
BUT... HOOORAY OBAMA care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
DGM said:
I've been looking.

Wouldn't that be a key figure to gauge the success? :confused:
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a key figure, but it's one that would be nice to track. Once the majoirty of the nation has insurance, the people who were previously uninsured will be a useless statistic. According to Iowa:

the sign-up process does not ask those who get health insurance through the state-run “insurance exchange” whether they’ve been uninsured
Click to expand...

So that question just doesn't come up, and they aren't trying to track it. That's a state run website so maybe the federal site would offer more information, but at this time I don't think they're tracking it. The goal is to get everyone signed up.
 
Interesting story here too:

Their most recent research finds that 56 percent of uninsured Americans intend to obtain coverage through the exchanges.

“One possible factor in the growing popularity of exchange-based plans versus other sources is improvements made to the federal exchange website to correct a wide array of technical issues that plagued the site,” a release on the poll’s findings noted. “Another factor may be that previously uninsured Americans who now have health insurance for 2014 had other options, such as insurance through an employer or signing up on a spouse’s or parent’s plan.”

The release continued, “Those options may not be as available to those who remain uninsured.”
Click to expand...

Good to see it's gaining some popularity. However, it does make a note that I have previously inquired about several times. Everyone says that the young and the healthy are the cornerstone to the success of the ACA. The ACA allows children to sign up on their parents plan until they are 27 (not positive?). How can people who do not need their own insurance be the cornerstone of something? It doesn't make sense.
 
I think the age they're talking about is 35 or under--so there's about a 7-yr gap there. Plus not everyone's parents have health insurance. Regarding the demographic mix; Kaiser did some evaluations indicating that premiums wouldn't be impacted appreciably if the ratio of young folks was below the 40 percent target by as much as 15 percent (so 25 percent of the pool total).

I believe Emily Cat has posted something similar, but I think most private insurers came up with their own projections of who was likely to sign up in the first year when pricing their plans, and didn't rely so much on the CBO projections.
 
plague311 said:
I don't think it's a key figure, but it's one that would be nice to track. Once the majoirty of the nation has insurance, the people who were previously uninsured will be a useless statistic. According to Iowa:



So that question just doesn't come up, and they aren't trying to track it. That's a state run website so maybe the federal site would offer more information, but at this time I don't think they're tracking it. The goal is to get everyone signed up.
Click to expand...

Eventually it might become a useless statistic... but since ACA was introduced on the argument that we've got a bunch of uninsured, and this is a problem that needs to be addressed, and ACA is the solution to that problem... it really seems like that's something they ought to be tracking, wouldn't you think?
 
AlexW said:
I think the age they're talking about is 35 or under--so there's about a 7-yr gap there. Plus not everyone's parents have health insurance. Regarding the demographic mix; Kaiser did some evaluations indicating that premiums wouldn't be impacted appreciably if the ratio of young folks was below the 40 percent target by as much as 15 percent (so 25 percent of the pool total).

I believe Emily Cat has posted something similar, but I think most private insurers came up with their own projections of who was likely to sign up in the first year when pricing their plans, and didn't rely so much on the CBO projections.
Click to expand...

My stuff is in there somewhere, and I can't be bothered to go find it... but basically, yes. Most of the insurers agreed that the CBO projections were a bit on the rose-colored-glasses side of things, and were ignored in favor of something more pragmatic and conservative.
 
Emily Cat said:
Eventually it might become a useless statistic... but since ACA was introduced on the argument that we've got a bunch of uninsured, and this is a problem that needs to be addressed, and ACA is the solution to that problem... it really seems like that's something they ought to be tracking, wouldn't you think?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I think, and to be honest, I don't personally care if it's tracked or not. As long as people get signed up in the long run then that stat means little to me. As the saying goes, one man's trash is another man's treasure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom