Skip to comments.RAND: Only One-Third Of Obamacare Exchange Sign-Ups Were From The Previously Uninsured
Posted on 04/01/2014 8:41:41 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Today is March 31, 2014: in theory, the last day you can sign up for coverage under the subsidized Obamacare insurance exchanges. If youve been a regular reader of this space, you know that the numbers routinely paraded by the Obama administration regarding Obamacare website sign-ups dont tell us much about the actual number of uninsured individuals who have gained coverage. A new study from the RAND Corporation indicates that only one-third of exchange sign-ups were previously uninsured.
The RAND study hasnt yet been published, but its contents were made available to Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times. RAND also estimates that 9 million individuals have purchased health plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges, but that the vast majority of these people were previously insured.
The RAND report appears to corroborate the work of other surveys. Earlier this month, McKinsey reported that 27 percent of those signing up for coverage on the individual market were previously uninsured.
Around 1/4 of exchange enrollees were previously uninsured
One important finding of the McKinsey survey was that the proportion of those who had formally enrolled in coverage, by paying their first months premium, was considerably lower among the previously uninsured, relative to the previously insured. 86 percent of those who were previously insured who had selected a marketplace plan on the exchanges had paid, whereas only 53 percent of the previously uninsured had.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
He is still a loose cannon on the other half.
And Shrillary says “What difference does it make?”
“The president’s specific words: I’m really good at killing people, authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write”
The chart at the link is very telling.
Not Rand Paul. Rand Corporation.
Where’s my $2500?
I was retired on Medicare this year and was still carrying COBRA from my work because my wife is a couple of years younger and not eligible. I found a cheaper policy for my wife, signed up for it and got supplemental insurance for myself. This is probably 2 of the 7 million counts on ObamaCare.
Yeh, pretty much part of the same cabal.....
You are joking right?
The RAND Corporation has been a government intelligence mining operation as old as the CIA.
How many who have been labeled “uninsured”, are veterans who have been getting ALL of their care through the V.A. system, like me?
And, oh yeah, I refuse.
I would want to see more details on the 27% that were previously uninsured and understand what percentage got it because they are being forced to get insurance. The supposed goal was to get insurance for all these people who did not have it and supposedly wanted it. So how many people does that represent? It is far lower than 27% and I doubt they will ever allow us to find that out.
So that means that after spending billions of dollars, only about 10% of the 30 million or so of people that didn’t have insurance before now have it because of Obamacare.
THAT is exactly the data I’ve been waiting for. Start with the number of insured before this nightmare began, then subtract the number who were cancelled, and add back the number of new sign-ups. And make sure to distinguish between Medicare and normal insurance. It’s not complicated, just easy to lie about and claim you don’t have the data (even if you’re the Sec. of HHS). But it is known, and I’ll trust McKinsey to have done the arithmetic well enough.
This chart needs to be plastered on ever conservative website, every blog, every TV show and the stats need to be repeated with Hannity-like monotony until we get the word out about what a sham and fraud this whole Obamacare thing is.
Not about Rand, but I did shoot the gun wrt RAND (interesting list of political actors associated there over the decades. - Amazing that RAND has survived for so long...).
What’s that... 1% of the population.
“make sure to distinguish between Medicare and normal insurance——”
I think you mean Medicaid,not Medicare. Big difference.
on the obamacare exchanges or through the traditional channels?
Lets not confuse people with facts!
Let me guess, April Fools!
The real question is RETENTION RATES. To get the first payment on any insurance policy is the EASY ONE. It is the second, third, and especially the tenth one once the idea of paying something for nothing actually hits home.
I suspect that the drop off rate in the first year for all previously uninsured people on the exchange will be close to 100%. They couldn’t be bothered to afford insurance before, they won’t be bothered to afford it now.
After all, insurance is the only thing you pay fort that you hope to God you never have to use.
I wonder how many people went on the exchanges hating it, but with no other choice because ObamaCare has driven premiums so high. And how many had lost insurance but delayed getting new insurance hoping that somehow this pile of crap would be thrown out, but in the end realized the cavalry wasn’t coming. So now, these people and those who simply didn’t want insurance but were forced into it are part of the “success” of ObamaCare, even though they detest it.
I’d also like to see charts of enrollees’ income vs. the subsidies they get, and how many enrollees are getting subsidies of over 70%, and how many are getting over 50%. I would not be at all surprised if 90% of enrollees are getting at least a 50% subsidy. Some of those people are no doubt the gov’t teat-suckers, but I’ll bet a lot are decent, hard working people, some of whom don’t realize that the $$ are swindled from them in the first place, and some do realize it, but figure this how they get it back...
This is ethically criminal behavior on the part of the politicians determined to keep important information from being known.
The line we were fed was that previously uninsured people would have gotten insurance if 1) it was affordable and/or 2) pre-existing conditions were covered.
Obamacare was supposed to fix all that, but we knew all along that 1) it would NOT be affordable and 2) pre-existing conditions might be covered, but you can't keep your doctor and OOP costs (deductibles, drugs, tests, etc.) are exhorbitant.
So what's the incentive for the previously uninsured now get insurance?
In any case, millions more have been added to Medicaid and millions are getting taxpayer subsidies to purchase insurance. That equates to millions more reliably Rat voters. Goal accomplished.
“So what’s the incentive for the previously uninsured now ‘to’ get insurance?”
My wife was the head office RN in a busy FP office. She labeled the 20-50 year old group as the bullet proof patients. With the exception of an accident or inherited poor protoplasm, they didn’t need insurance with the exception of pregnancies.
Our siblings and all of our children, now in their mid to late 40’s only needed a doctor for easy treatable and short term acute medical problems. These children, now adults in their 40’s realized this in their twenties and went on a cash basis for their health costs. Some still are. Those in business for themselves had some type of casualty insurance.
They refused to get the useless and expensive yearly checkups, aka physicals and all of the expensive and useless lab tests involved with yearly physicals.
Now, most will pay the penalty rather than enroll in Obama care. Some may enroll in the basic Obama Care policy as their new casualty insurance. With the high deductibles, they will continue being on a cash basis for most if not all of their medical care. The Obozo Scare policy after the high deductibles will pay for most serious hospital visits.
To answer your excellent question, there is Zero reason for these healthy people to enroll in Obozo Scare.