March 31, 2014
How many uninsured now have insurance due to Obamacare?

How many people who had no insurance last year now have it with Obamacare? Junking much of our health care system was a required emergency measure in 2010 because of uninsured people. (It was such an emergency that Congressmen were not given time to read the bill they voted for.) Since the uninsured forced Obamacare on us how many of the newly signed up didn't have medical insurance before?

No one knows. It is complicated and involves assumptions and interpretations... And Obama's bureaucrats are not keeping track. What? They are not even trying to find out! Daily Caller:

 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) deputy administrator Gary Cohen, who directs the agency's health insurance reform unit, said that CMS is not tracking information about previously uninsured enrollees.

"That's not a data point we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way," Cohen said when asked how many uninsured people are signing up on the Obamacare exchanges, according to a tweet from National Journal's Sam Baker.

Locally Danny Westneat, talking about Washington, says he knows. But then he says the state doesn't know. Seattle Times quoting Westneat:

The state doesn't know how many of these people were previously uninsured.

So how does he know? Not by any method he talks about. But, more importantly, he is sure that all the criticism is from Republicans.

An appointed member of a Washington health care oversight board told me the same this week -- that Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler is not keeping track. No one knows.

See also Megan McArdle at Bloomberg "A Key Obamacare Question We Cannot Answer."

Posted by Ron Hebron at March 31, 2014 06:59 AM | Email This
Comments
1. I'm self employed, had a $10,000 per person deductible and paid $519 per month for a family of 4 last year. So at the end of the year Regence informs us that the new policy is going to be just over $1000/month and a $13,600 deductible. Screw that, so I sent them a letter declaring we wouldn't renew for 2014. Had a few minor kid visits and found that if you actually PAID for your treatment, they give all sorts of discounts. So thanks to Obamacare, I don't have insurance, but I have more money in my pocket and pay less for my Doctor visits.

Posted by: Dik on March 31, 2014 08:45 AM
2. HOW MANY UNINSURED NOW HAVE INSURANCE DUE TO OBAMACARE?

LA Times says 9.5 million:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-uninsured-national-20140331,0,5472960.story

Yer welcome...

Posted by: scottd on March 31, 2014 08:46 AM
3. @2 Thanks scottd!

@Ron Hebron at March 31, 2014 06:59 AM,
Any word on when the Republicans will propose and vote on a replacement? Or shall you all just double down on repealing health insurance coverage for 9.5 million Americans?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 31, 2014 11:03 AM
4. The data collection story is just one more desperate effort by conservatives to malign Obamacare. There are much better ways to accurately measure the number of people with health insurance than to ask people who sign up for one type of insurance whether they previously had insurance (and when, what type, etc.). Anyway, the success of Obamacare is not something to be tracked day to day -- something that both sides are guilty of. And if the number of Obamacare enrollees were greater than the projections, we'd be hearing even louder complaints from conservatives about the cost of subsidies.

As for Dik@1, your argument is full of holes. What evidence do you have that Obamacare was the reason Regence cancelled your old insurance policy (something insurers regularly did before Obamacare)? You had a $10k/person deductible before and just figured out that providers give a discount if you pay directly? Is that discount as much as the discount that providers give to insured customers as part of their rate negotiations? Finally, do you think you're better off without insurance, given that the primary purpose of insurance is to protect you from catastrophic losses rather than to "have more money in your pocket" on average?

Posted by: Bruce on March 31, 2014 11:40 AM
5. @2 - thanks for link.

Will read more later, but how do they know this bullet (1/3 previously uninsured) since no exchange asks it? Also, the 6 million isn't a real number of enrollees, just folks that have fill out a form in some part.

• At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.

Posted by: Dengle on March 31, 2014 11:52 AM
6. Bruce, Regence told me so in a letter, because of the ACA requirements my insurance was no longer available after the end of 2013. They offered me an new policy with higher deductible at twice the cost. So far I'm paying less NET then I was paying after getting Regence's price. In the long term who knows . . .

After paying for my own healthcare (high deductibles) and insurance for over 18 years, I'm not applying until something bad happens, they can't say no.

Posted by: Dik on March 31, 2014 12:43 PM
7. @3 - not sure on what plan now republicans should offer, but even if we went back to what we had is better. But let's just look at the the original options (ones D's are now saying we should do): affordability of insurance = open up across state lines and pre-existing conditions = portability or making HSA an even better deal with a larger tax break?

All were republican options to be added to the law prior to the crap sandwich we are eating now. Higher premiums with higher out of pocket for limited doctors or hospitals. Or at least not the ones you had prior. That is a problem and not an anecdotal one.

Posted by: Dengle on March 31, 2014 12:55 PM
8. Dik@6, Regence did not have to raise the deductible or cost due to ACA. They may have had to cover some types of healthcare that were previously uncovered, but you don't mention that. Without that information it's hard to interpret your complaint.

So your plan now is "I'm not applying until something bad happens, they can't say no." In other words, you're breaking the law (requiring insurance) and freeloading (counting on your fellow taxpayers to subsidize you when something bad happens). I'm sure you're not one of those Republicans who complains when other people break laws or expect handouts that they don't need. Because that would be, you know, hypocritical.

Dengle@7, surely you are smart enough to know that requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions without an insurance mandate will result in more freeloaders like our friend Dik@6. "Open up across state lines" is already legal, but what Reoublicans wanted was elimination of any state regulation -- kind of odd for a party that went to the Supreme Court in a failed effort to get state control over Obamacare, don't you think?

Posted by: Bruce on March 31, 2014 01:42 PM
9. .
@7 Dengle on March 31, 2014 12:55 PM,

So, can we chalk you up for just doubling down on repealing health insurance coverage for 9.5 million Americans as a winning Republican alternative to ObamaCare?

Or maybe you'd like your party to actually propose and vote on an alternative?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 31, 2014 02:40 PM
10. Dengle,

Have you checked the WA exchange to see if you can get a better plan under the ACA, or are you leaving yourself and your children at the mercy of events? The latter would seem to be a very high "ideology tax" to pay, indeed.

Posted by: tensor on March 31, 2014 03:48 PM
11. Dengle, my apologies. My question was for Dik. (I will consume more caffeine now.)

Posted by: tensor on March 31, 2014 03:50 PM
12. Dengle @5: I can't answer your question because I did not write the article or conduct the study it is based on. Perhaps if you read both, you might find the answers you're looking for.

Bruce @8: You're wasting your time with Dik. There's a reason he doesn't provide the specifics that you would need to evaluate his claim. See tensor @10 for some additional insight.

If he wants to leave his wife and children uninsured and hope for the best, that's up to him -- but it seems like a Dik move to me.

PS -- Dik @6 does not seem to understand how open enrollment periods work.

Posted by: scottd on March 31, 2014 04:29 PM
13. Too early to tell. So far estimates have been speculative and subjective. In reality, a reliable number won't be known for as long as a month or three.

It will be close to impossible to repeal it - to the chagrin of hard core conservatives. No matter the makeup of congress and I don't expect it. However, it is not unreasonable to believe there will be significant changes, streamlining and a major overhaul. If the mandates were done away with, that would be big improvement. A GOP senate will bring more changes that matter, while continued Democrat control will nibble around the edges. Now is the time for Republicans and other anti-Obamacare supporters to move forward with their plans during this window of opportunity. But realize, as much as opponents want, the chances of full repeal are very slim. I may be wrong and so what if I am !

Posted by: KDS on March 31, 2014 05:57 PM
14. "Junking much of our health care system..."

Really? I pass by First Hill all of the time, and all those hospitals, clinics, and medical offices seem to be doing just fine. By what measure did the ACA constitute "junking" of any part of our health-care system, let alone "most" of it? Or is this panicky, helpless hyperventilation such a well-known symptom of ACA poisoning amongst right-wingers that even us Seattle liberals should accept their resultant loud gasping as legitimate? :-)

"Locally Danny Westneat, talking about Washington, says he knows."

Ever since Jim Miller wandered away, yelling "Comments are closed!!" at the clouds, our monthly quota of Danny Westneat Gripes has gone unused. Glad to see you're picking up the slack, Ron. At least you're not still listening to some smarmy, snide, know-nothing of a grifter --

"See also Megan McArdle..."

Has Bloomberg started paying in pink Himalyan sea salt?

Posted by: tensor on March 31, 2014 06:54 PM
15. .
@13 KDS on March 31, 2014 05:57 PM,

I'm glad to hear you are on board with the Obama administration's and the Democratic party's approach for identifying legislative improvements to ObamaCare and are now willing to abandon the unrealistic 'repeal' nonsense which has been the Republican position for 4 years now.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 31, 2014 06:56 PM
16. Not purchasing insurance is not breaking the law, you can just pay the "tax" that is not a tax. Enrollment remains open, you are just subject to the tax after a certain date that they keep changing. Liberals have been gaming me for years through the tax code, I'll reassess costs yearly and decide if what works in MY best interest.

I don't want or need all those extra items ACA requires me to purchase. My wife can't get pregnant, so no coverage for maternity or birth control needed. I don't need kiddie dental care, I already paid for that up and including braces for both of my teenagers. I don't believe in chiropractors so I don't need that care, and the list goes on.

Posted by: Dik on March 31, 2014 07:36 PM
17. @16 Dik on March 31, 2014 07:36 PM,

And, of course, if your wife contracts ovarian cancer or your "kiddie" has a brain tumour, you still come out ahead because instead of having health insurance and paying what an actuary determined the cost of the risk to be, you've 'gamed' the system and saved some money.

Good for you!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 31, 2014 07:58 PM
18. Enrollment remains open, you are just subject to the tax after a certain date that they keep changing.

Hate to be the one to break this to you, sparky -- but insurance companies are not required to accept you outside of open enrollment. They will definitely reject you if there is a significant pre-existing condition.

And, waiting for the next open enrollment isn't going to help much if one of you gets into a serious accident.

If that's a surprise, you still have few hours to enroll. Good luck!

Otherwise, thanks for subsidizing others with the ideology tax you will be paying!

Posted by: scottd on March 31, 2014 08:09 PM
19. FYI. The deadline will be extended at least for those who have started the application process. The main problem with the "one size fits all mandate" is that it adds in cost as shown by the fact that 3/4 of the people covered pay a notable increase, while 1/4 of those covered - who are subsidized will pay less.

The next move after enrollment for this year is done is that the insurance companies will need to be bailed out by the Federal Government, a move which a majority of Americans oppose. A vote will probably be held on this provision in the House and those who support bailouts do so at their own political peril.

Posted by: KDS on March 31, 2014 08:55 PM
20. .
@19 KDS on March 31, 2014 08:55 PM,
"the fact that 3/4 of the people covered pay a notable increase, while 1/4 of those covered - who are subsidized will pay less"

Citation needed.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 31, 2014 09:16 PM
21. @12 - NP tensor, but good question. I now have medical through my employer so do not yet have to worry about picking a plan. However, based on what I have seen of the plans in research on the topic, I would be paying more of a premium and higher deductible than the LifeWise insurance I had been buying for my family before being covered by my new employer.

I wouldn't receive a subsidy either.

Hope you enjoyed your afternoon caffeine fix. :-)

Posted by: Dengle on March 31, 2014 09:30 PM
22. KDS@19, I'm not sure what's more unsupportable -- your claim that 3/4 of people are getting "notable" rate increases, or your certainty that the insurance companies charging these notably increased rates will still have to be bailed out by the government.

Your statement that the deadline will be extended for those who have started the enrollment process isn't quite true, either.

Posted by: Bruce on March 31, 2014 09:40 PM
23. @9 - MBS...first of all our own government has kicked millions off their insurance already (5-6M) estimate and would have been more if Obama hadn't made delays to the law. (BTW - I'm still not sure why people on this site from both political views are not more upset that he is doing so. No president can make law...only enact and he isn't enacting he's altering the law).

Now for the 9.5M...how many of them where kicked off insurance they were already paying for? How many would have signed up as part of normal Medicare/Medicade? (6 month average of 1.5M to 2.5M average since 2008). So if you take the low end of 5 million that were kicked off their existing coverage and then the high end of the normal range of sign ups without Obamacare (taking high end because of the push by gov to get them on)...you're at 7.5 Million that had insurance before Ocare. So "we" redid our entire health system so we can provide insurance to 1.5 - 2M people. That is nice, but it could have been done without ruining the system we had. And we know that rates and services under Ocare are higher and worse.

Here is an article talking to these numbers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-made-up-good-news-about-obamacare/2014/03/31/1ed97eba-b8d1-11e3-899e-bb708e3539dd_story.html

Posted by: Dengle on March 31, 2014 09:43 PM
24. @22 - Bruce the deadline has been pushed for those that have started the enrollment process but not completed by tonight. Not sure why you say not quite true. It is. It is not quite true that anyone can sign up after 3/31 and not be in trouble though. Since they have to check an "honor" box saying that they tried to before. Is that the not quite true part?

If so, I agree...not quite true...like lots of promises, numbers and deadlines for Obamacare. :-)

Posted by: Dengle on March 31, 2014 09:49 PM
25. Dengle@23, you raise good questions. I'm not sure where the line is between allowable implementation decisions such as delaying parts of a law, and changing a law illegally. I don't know whether ACA specifically allows certain implementation flexibility. I suppose that if, say, President Romney had unilaterally delayed most of ACA for 2 years, that would have been ruled illegal. But since I'm confident that Obama is doing the right thing, I'm not looking into the legalities. That does not mean I would support him breaking the law; the fact that no one has challenged him legally suggests that he is within his powers.

As tensor@14 noted, we have not redone our entire health care system, or even most of it. We have changed our insurance rules somewhat. Unfortunately, that means we're sticking with a complicated, inefficient system that's inferior to a good single payer system.

Posted by: Bruce on March 31, 2014 09:58 PM
26. Apparently, from the article in the TIMES today there is no agreement on what to count, who to count and how to count to determine "success". If you cannot measure it, you cannot control it.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2023269520_apxhealthoverhaulqa.html

Posted by: Smokie on April 1, 2014 05:50 AM
27. All of these numbers claims on Obamacare sign-ups are confusing. I have been hearing 9.5 million signed up, and yesterday Sebelius and crew saying that as of March 31st, they are approaching their goal of 7 million signed up, and this morning the announcements that 7 million target has been met. That's really extraordinary when the WH was talking about hopefully moving from around 5 million to 7 million in one day, March 31st, a day on which most of the sign-up website was down. I suspect these numbers are all made up out of whole cloth, an act of desperation.

Posted by: katomar on April 1, 2014 10:52 AM
28. In addition to my previous post, the "original" goal was to get 36 million uninsured Americans insured. We now have either 5 million, 7 million, or 9 million signed up, and that's being trumpeted as a success?

Posted by: katomar on April 1, 2014 10:56 AM
29. katomar:

Ron's question was how many uninsured people now have insurance due to Obamacare? According to the LA Times and RAND Corp, that number is 9.5M. It includes people who signed up on the exchanges and new Medicaid people.

Sibelius was talking about the number of people who are signing up on the exchanges. She said that number was approaching their goal of 7M. That number would include people who already had insurance and people who were previously uninsured.

Posted by: scottd on April 1, 2014 11:41 AM
30. MBS, scottd, tensor, Bruce and all my other obedient blogtrolls - Thanks for helping push this pile of crapola, on the way to our utopian dream of Single Payer after we bankrupt those evil corporate insurers! March on!

Posted by: Chairman MaObama on April 1, 2014 01:43 PM
31. MBS, bless your little liberal heart for worrying about my conservative family. Save just a few bucks? Really, I consider $13,000/year more than a few bucks. I've always had high deductible plans so I have always funded my own medical costs.

Posted by: Dik on April 1, 2014 01:44 PM
32. Scottd @29: you missed the thrust of my questions. Firstly, on March 30th, Sebelius and crowd were saying the number was roughly 5 million uninsured, now signed up. On March 31st, they are approaching their target of 7 million. That's 2 million in a 24-hour or less time period during which most of the day the website was down. Just does not compute with me. Also, how can any of them possibly be joyous at this successful enterprise when the original goal was 36 million?

Posted by: katomar on April 1, 2014 02:32 PM
33. If you cannot measure it, you cannot control it.

I asked Ron for some metrics on how we "junk[ed] much of our health-care system..." but he's posted no numbers. Perhaps you could help him with that?

Meanwhile, I rode past First Hill today, and it still does not resemble a burnt-out slum. Looks like we still have aways to go...

Posted by: tensor on April 1, 2014 02:40 PM
34. Also, I would like to note that nobody is even trying to come up with a statistic showing how many people are now uninsured as a result of Obamacare. So, seven million signed up for Obamacare, but I would bet the bank that the total uninsured is now way more than 36 million due to all of the cancelled policies, employers who have laid off employees or made them part-time rather than full time, etc. And many of the people who signed up for Obamacare are finding the policy more expensive than what they previously had, so probably will reneg when it comes time to pay the premium. So as usual, liberal policies have probably, once again, exacerbated the very problem they now claim to have solved.


Posted by: katomar on April 1, 2014 02:41 PM
35. katamor,
I understand that this is a right talking point, but outside of opinion, what evidence (actual statistics) do you have to lead you to such a conclusion. Forget the opinion fog that the left and right in the media chatter about, have you seen any actual, fact-based analysis published? I, frankly, have not seen and wouldn't expect one until several more months pass. To me, you "bet the bank" opinion is simply a wild guess with no foundation. I would be interested if you had actual facts to back this up. My wild, intuitive guess is that, the amount of uninsured, once the dust settles will be reduced because of ACA by between 4.5 to 5.5 million. This is intuition based on the fact that both sides will inflate the mbers to make their case, but in the end the most significant chunks in reduction of uninsured will come from the Medicaid expansion and 26 year olds or under being able to stay on parents plans. The story of conversion of full time to part time has already been debunked (see various fact check sites). The insurance companies dropping people is nonsense, since those people can sign up on the exchange (nothing is stopping them outside of their adversion to the ACA itself). What is hard to pin down, as Ron points out is how many signing up on the exchange didn't previously have insurance.

Posted by: tc on April 1, 2014 03:07 PM
36. TC: Clue: The phrase "I'd bet the bank" means just that, a bet, an intuitive guess on how a specific event, etc. may turn out. I did state that nobody appears able to get the statistics together on how many are uninsured right now. And by the way, please do not patronize me with your assumption that nobody had their individual policies cancelled due to Obamacare. I have so many friends who have lost their coverage, despite the direct claims by Obama that if you like your policy, keep your policy. Oh, no. They were sent letter of cancellation of policies with which they were fully satisfied and did go to the exchange only to learn that equivalent coverage was just too expensive. They are without insurance for now. As you say, we may see the numbers come out in a few months. Or on the other hand, we may be told more fairy tales like 2 million signing up in one day when the site went down twice. It has taken years to get to the 5 million mark, if true, and they want us to believe 2 million signed up in one day on a glitch-ridden site! Hilarious.

Posted by: katomar on April 1, 2014 04:46 PM
37. .
Stefan Sharkansky, (un)SP front pagers and the (un)SP peanut gallery,

Time, once again, to face the music and understand Reality has a well-known liberal bias. With today's announcement of more 7.1 million (and counting!) people signed up for ObamaCare through insurance exchanges, at the end of the open enrolment period for ObamaCare our long national nightmare is over.

Despite your unflagging mountain of bullshit (e.g. "Death Panels!", "You Lie!", "$500 Million stolen from Medicare!" ... 50 plus meaningless votes of repeal, shutting down the federal government) ObamaCare has won at every turn.

And it wins in the minds and the pocketbooks of most Americans.

No, it is not perfect. Frankly, a single payer system like exists in Canada or a system like exists in Switzerland is or to my liking for the healthcare results they deliver at their cost, but the perfect is not the enemy of the good.

But with my declaration of victory I don't want to discourage you from contributing your dollars and your energy to continuing to fight the battle you lost on March 23 2010.
Please proceed.
Tells us again how ObamaCare will kill us, take away our freedom, cost us more, lead to Soviet style communism .... and don't ever restore this sad site's banner color to what it was before the passage of ObamaCare. The color red should be your eternal monument to your ignominious defeat.

And, lastly, THANK-YOU for giving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the moniker of
ObamaCare.
Our first African-American president shall forever be remembered for this act and how despite the very best (which we understand is a very low bar) efforts of those aligned (or duped! --- looking at you Rags) to defeat him and his signature legislative accomplishment were defeated at every turn by a smarter and more accomplished leader than any you could find.

ps. Hey pudge, how's that expert opinion of yours in the field of software that the system needed a complete re-write looking? douche nozzle.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on April 1, 2014 06:08 PM
38. D-E-M-O-C-A-R-E.

The rape of America.

Posted by: Independent Voter on April 1, 2014 06:11 PM
39. Katamor,
Don't patronize me either with your anecdote evidence. Ddid your friends try getting insurance on the state exchange? If they didn't, then don't tell me they they couldn't get insurance. If instead, they didn't like the numbers, then they mad a conscious choice not to have insurance. For some people, the cost for paying out of pocket and maybe paying the tax penalty is less expensive option. This is different than saying they lost insurance and couldn't get anything else. If they couldn't afford the exchange rates, then they either make too much to qualify for subsidies or they didn't check hard enough at what all their options were. Otherwise, welcome to the real world of what health insurance and medical cost entail. I have a friend that complained about the same situation (i.e., insurance company canceling their existing policy because it didn't meet the minimum thresholds). I don't know what they make, but know it is over the top subsidy level (based on the person's job and where they live). The person explained the numbers and it boils down to the fact that they were getting by with less coverage and now with a policy with normal coverage they would have to pay the private insurance rate the rest of us would have been paying. I compares their private rate with what the total combined rate my wife and I pay (my portion plus company portion) and my friend's new rate was very comparable once you took into factor copay's and deductibles. As demonstrated by fact checkers, the so-called horror stories are fabrications where the individual didn't pursue what the exchange had to offer and didn't know about the subsidies. So, again don't patronize me with your anecdote stories that lack all the facts. Give me hard evidence where someone lost insurance and couldn't buy on the exchange and the reason why they couldn't buy. Then, I will listen. My guess the reason why in most all cases will be a choice and not because they couldn't.

Posted by: tc on April 1, 2014 06:12 PM
40. "KDS@19, I'm not sure what's more unsupportable -- your claim that 3/4 of people are getting "notable" rate increases, or your certainty that the insurance companies charging these notably increased rates will still have to be bailed out by the government."

The 3/4 of the people I cited is a ballpark estimate - if you have other different percentages, why not show them ? I have read that approximate number from multiple sources. I am open to noting updates on that claim. It is known fact that health insurance rates have risen on the average in the last year. As for the bailouts, that may well not occur until after the November elections - in fact my money would be on that, as that plays into the strategy of the Democrat Party.

"Your statement that the deadline will be extended for those who have started the enrollment process isn't quite true, either."

The deadline will occur when the Government stops taking applications, whenever that is. Again, the ACA is an intermediate step orchestrated by the Democrats toward single payer. Whether that course materializes will be better known after the 2016 elections.

Posted by: KDS on April 1, 2014 06:23 PM
41. Every working man I know who has had his policy cancelled, now has available only a 5K deductible, double premiums, and confusion as he tries to get care. Democare is the worst lie, con job, and theft from working families ever.

"It'll cost less than your cell phone bill"

"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"

"If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance"

All three lies from the liar in chief.

Democare is a stool sample,and that's why it had to be passed to see what's in it.

The voters don't like what's in it.

The voters don't like being handed a plate of turds.

The ONLY proponents are those who don't have to be on it.

May the Democrats, and the Republicans who support it, ALL rot in Hell.

Posted by: Independent Voter on April 1, 2014 06:52 PM
42. @39: Good grief! Who are you today, Harry Reid? "Nobody had their policies cancelled, they are lying! The friends and acquaintances I mentioned simply received a letter from their long-time insurance provider explaining they cancelled the coverage due to ACA. Do you get that, TC? Cancelled because of the regulations in ACA. They had the policies they wanted and now they don't. People are supposed to have a choice in these matters, but the government effectively forced their insurance companies to cancel their policies. And yes, they did visit the exchanges and found that comparable coverage to what they had was more expensive that what they had been paying. I realize this is anecdotal, TC, and never claimed it was anything but anecdotal, so stop trying to negate my first-hand experiences with people who have had damaging experiences with this whole mess. I don't lie, and neither do they.

Posted by: katomar on April 1, 2014 08:06 PM
43. @40 KDS on April 1, 2014 06:23 PM,
"he 3/4 of the people I cited is a ballpark estimate"

Ballpark like stadium?
Suppose you've forgotten the bullshit ads and pundit comments about how many stadiums would be filled by ObamaCare exchange users at the beginning? LOL

Hey, hotshot, nobody needs to show you their estimates to compare to your "ballpark" estimates until you show your basis of estimation.
Your just trolling with a strawman.

Here's the situation. Despite all your (and those who inspire you) bullshit for FOUR YEARS, ObamaCare is a gigantic political, economic and social success.

Unless and until you and your side come up with something better (as adjudged by the voters) to replace it with, you're done.

9.5 Million (and counting) newly insured!
7.1 Million (and counting) healthcare.gov users!


Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on April 1, 2014 08:35 PM
44. Regence canceled my plan. After researching their new plans as well as those on the WA exchange, it was clear my only choices were to pay much more in premiums, or accept way higher deductibles. I only have one way to absorb this cost, and that is to zero out my charitable giving until I can figure out how to increase my income. I hate to do it, but the way I look at it this increase in cost is forced charity - it's just I no longer have a choice of recipients. Sad.

Posted by: J Durocher on April 1, 2014 09:16 PM
45. "9.5 Million (and counting) newly insured!
7.1 Million (and counting) healthcare.gov users!"

Citation please from a reliable source. The White House Propaganda machine numbers don't pass the smell or laugh test ! Users are not the same as paid customers.

"Ballpark like stadium?
Suppose you've forgotten the bullshit ads and pundit comments about how many stadiums would be filled by ObamaCare exchange users at the beginning? LOL

What percentage of uninsured are now covered ? That fills some stadiums too, but it's statistically insignificant. (Hint: The total uninsured has decreased - but by less than 5 percent. I'll cite this. Nah, - like hell you care...

"Hey, hotshot, nobody needs to show you their estimates to compare to your "ballpark" estimates until you show your basis of estimation. Your just trolling with a strawman."

If you dispute those estimates, then tell us the percentages you have seen or would you rather continue throwing out more bluster and creating your fictional strawman.

Posted by: KDS on April 1, 2014 09:17 PM
46. Re: Percentage of uninsured covered -
(Source: Forbes - 3/10/14)

"The Obama administration has, for months now, been peddling nice-sounding numbers as to how many people are gaining health coverage due to Obamacare. But their numbers have been inflated on two fronts. First, not everyone who has "selected a marketplace plan" under Obamacare has actually paid the required premiums, payment being required to actually gain coverage. Second, only a fraction of people on the exchanges were previously uninsured. A new survey from McKinsey gives us a better view into the real numbers. Of the 3.3 million people that the White House has touted as Obamacare exchange "sign-ups," less than 500,000 are actual uninsured people who have actually gained health coverage.

Many Obamacare 'enrollees' aren't actually enrolled

McKinsey, the leading management consulting firm, has been conducting monthly surveys of the exchange-eligible population under the auspices of its Center for U.S. Health System Reform. McKinsey's most recent survey, conducted in February with 2,096 eligible respondents, found that only 48 percent had thus far signed up for a 2014 health plan. Within that 48 percent, three-fifths were previously insured people who liked their old plans and were able to keep them. The remaining two-fifths were the ones who signed up for coverage on the Obamacare exchanges."

They say 500,000 out of 50 M uninsured or 1% then, but it may be closer to 1.5 - 2.0 M or 3-4% of the previously uninsured by now.

@44 - sad story and it sounds like a true one. That is what the Leftist crowd tries to scoff, downplay or call them bulls**t because it is an inconvenient truth to their talking points.

Posted by: KDS on April 1, 2014 09:35 PM
47. Spam. Closing.

Posted by: Ron on April 2, 2014 07:39 AM