Most ObamaCare enrollees already had health plans, report says

FoxNews.com ^ | January 18, 2014 | FoxNews.com

[grimalkin]

The majority of the more than 2 million Americans who signed up for health insurance under ObamaCare through the end of December were already enrolled in employer-sponsored plans or had previously bought their own coverage, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

Early data from insurers, brokers and consultants suggest that the marketplaces are popular with consumers who were previously covered elsewhere, raising questions about a law intended to expand coverage to millions of healthy, uninsured Americans to help offset costs.

A survey by management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found that only 11 percent of consumers who purchased new coverage under ObamaCare were previously uninsured. The survey was based on a sampling of 4,563 consumers between November and January, according to The Wall Street Journal.

HealthMarkets Inc., an insurance agency that signed up about 7,500 people in exchange plans, reported that 65 of its enrollees had prior coverage, the report said. Fifteen percent of enrollees had their individual plans canceled, and 40 percent switched over from previous individual plans.

"One of the intents of the law was to address the uninsured problem in our country," David M. Cordani, chief executive of insurer Cigna told the newspaper. Some insurers said the early data on newly insured consumers is falling short of expectations.

[pepsionice]

It would be curious to know...this twenty-five million group who didn’t have insurance in 2008....what’s the number today, and why.

If we did all of this....disrupting the lives of millions...so that a lousy two million people got out of the insured bracket....then there’s something fundamentally wrong with the whole concept.

[pepsionice]

It would be curious to know...this twenty-five million group who didn’t have insurance in 2008....what’s the number today, and why.

If we did all of this....disrupting the lives of millions...so that a lousy two million people got out of the insured bracket....then there’s something fundamentally wrong with the whole concept.

[Liz]

NY POST REPORTS: ObamaCare dooming Democrats for the fall (O/Care's Promised Land a Dem dump site)

In 2009, retiring Arkansas Rep. Marion Berry presciently warned that ObamaCare was setting up Democrats for a huge 2010 midterm defeat; just as “HillaryCare” led to Democrat loss of 54 House seats in 1994.

Obama scoffed at such concerns; he told Berry, “Well, the big difference here is you’ve got me.”

Republicans went on to win 63 House seats and six Senate seats.....the largest swing to Repubs in the House since 1938. So Oama was right---the difference was him.

Liberals are still convinced their vision is what America wants and needs and that Obama is the right man to give it to us. Assuming Republicans don’t immolate themselves — always a possibility — that vision will receive yet another massive rebuke in November.

The question will be whether liberals question the soundness of their faith or that the fault lies with the false prophet who failed to deliver them to the promised land.

==================================================

"Those Democrats leering over my shoulder owe me bigtime. This
healthcare bill insures we have a permanent Democratic majority."

"All except those Tea Party types, swallowed hook, line and sinker my promises that they could":
(1) keep their existing health plans,
(2) keep their own doctors that they like,
(3) keep their 25-year-olds on the family health plan,
(4) never be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition,
(5) sign up instantly on my tech-savvy government Web site,
(6) buy insurance only after becoming seriously ill."
(7) save $2,500 in annual premiums in the bargain....
(8) All without any new taxes.

"Them sonovagun Tea Partiers will rue the day they criticized my wonderful bill."

[Soul of the South]

Likely the already insured who moved to Obamacare from employer or private plans did so for the subsidies. I’ve noticed a number of people in their 50’s and 60’s post on an early retirement forum they were able to lower their insurance costs through subsidies by dropping their private plans and moving to Obamacare. These people are not yet 65, and are living on savings while waiting for pensions and social security to kick in at 65-67, so they have no earned income to report.

The alleged purpose of Obamacare was to address the “tragedy” of the uninsured in this nation. If the 11% number is correct, it now appears we blew up the health care system in this country, and dramatically increased health insurance costs, to help 220,000 people.

[Pollster1]

That’s unexpected. Who would have guessed that few people who chose not to buy cheap insurance before this terrible law was forced on us would choose to buy the more expensive, high-deductible ObamaCare policies?

[Conspiracy Guy]

Regardless of the details, “there’s something fundamentally wrong with the whole concept.”

[Truth29]

"Regardless of the details, “there’s something fundamentally wrong with the whole concept.”"

Alternatively, it was never about health care. It is about power and control - increasing dependency on government. Oamacare is working spectacularly well.

[ReaganGeneration2]

Um, but all of those people were previously in substandard plans. /s

[Ben Ficklin]

Murdoch confirming at Fox what he said in the WSJ.

[Conspiracy Guy]

ditto

[EVO X]

These people are not yet 65, and are living on savings while waiting for pensions and social security to kick in at 65-67, so they have no earned income to report.

If they live in an expanded medicaid state, they would be eligible for medicaid if they had no income since assets don't count. If ACA sticks around there will be all sorts of financial planning going on to keep income low in order to get maximum subsidies and lowest deductibles.

[trebb]

Did they really expect those who didn’t have coverage, but were getting along without the hassle/cost, would actually pay in order to maintain their own particular status quo?

[Williams]

Of course and many were forced into it because Ocare cancelled their policies.

[GOPJ]

LOL

[Soul of the South]

“If they live in an expanded medicaid state, they would be eligible for medicaid if they had no income since assets don’t count.”

There has been considerable discussion of Medicaid eligibility on the early retirement forums as well. Most early retirees having financial assets or property investments won’t go on Medicaid because the government can take assets from the estate to repay Medicaid. They prefer subsidized Obamacare policies.

[EVO X]

They prefer subsidized Obamacare policies.

It is my understanding if your income is in the expanded medicare range, you can't get the subsidies. They are probably just drawing enough out of their 401K or IRA to get above the threshold. I've seen post by Freepers that live in non expanded medicaid states that can't get the subsidies because they don't have enough taxable income.

[Soul of the South]

“They are probably just drawing enough out of their 401K or IRA to get above the threshold.”

Most have dividend, annuity, and interest income. Some may have a revenue stream from rental property. A few have pensions. Clearly they have the ability to “manage” their various income streams to maximize the benefits of social programs. It is interesting to read the threads on when to take social security and pension benefits as well as how to shift investments between taxable and non-taxable accounts to minimize tax bite and maximize use of government benefits. Reading these forums gives real insight into how rational human beings are in responding to economic incentives and how government intervention (i.e. programs) influences behavior.

[EVO X]

Reading these forums gives real insight into how rational human beings are in responding to economic incentives and how government intervention (i.e. programs) influences behavior

Once ACA goes into full effect, it will change behaviors for the millions that want to purchase insurance through the exchanges. I can foresee some really ugly outcomes for people that aren't as savvy at managing their financial affairs as those retirees you mentioned.