Posted on 05/12/2014 12:13:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Or so says a new McKinsey survey of the numbers:
One of the principal flaws in the coverage of Obamacare’s exchange enrollment numbers to date has been that the press has not made distinctions between those who have “signed up” for Obamacare-based plans, and those who have actually paid for those plans and thereby achieved enrollment in health insurance. A new survey from McKinsey indicates that a large majority of people signing up are now paying for their coverage. This is progress for the health law. But the survey still indicates that three-fourths of enrollees were previously insured.
Of course we’ve seen the propaganda push from the White House that has claimed the numbers (8 million enrolled) mean that the law is working. As usual, the devil is in the details. If the law was designed to provide coverage to those who were uninsured, 25% of the total enrolled fitting that description is hardly indicative of that claim’s efficacy. And when you break down that 25% number, it’s even less indicative:
At most around 930,000 people have gained coverage from Obamacare’s under-26 “slacker mandate” (not 3 million, as is commonly suggested); another 3 million or so have gained coverage from the law’s expansion of Medicaid. Approximately 2.6 million previously uninsured individuals have obtained coverage through the ACA exchanges and the related off-exchange individual markets; however, the off-exchange purchases are mostly unsubsidized, and therefore can’t necessarily be credited to Obamacare.
Here’s a graphic that breaks the McKinsey survey’s results down into a more understandable form:
In reality, what the law has essentially done rearranged the burden of payment among those enrolled while really not doing much at all in terms of reaching those for whom it was supposedly designed to help:
What the exchanges appear to be doing is mainly helping people who were previously insured. If you’re 62 years old, say, and your income is $30,000, and you were paying for your own coverage before, you’re now eligible for plans that are much cheaper for you, thanks to taxpayer-funded subsidies and higher premiums for young people.
Of course that means that other people are paying more. “My old plan was canceled under Obamacare,” an exasperated Californian told me last week. “The new Obamacare plan costs twice as much, and the deductibles are higher. And yet Obama is counting me as one of his 8 million people!” But hey—at least he has maternity coverage.
And I’m sure our Californian is eternally grateful for big brother deciding for him that maternity care was an absolute necessity for which he must pay. But the point is the 8 million number remains very shaky (and that’s being kind) and it really doesn’t at all reflect what the White House would have you believe it reflects – that the law is working.
~McQ
The bottom line is that we are destroying the entire system for what could have been accomplished with just a bit of common sense reform to Medicaid.
Yes, and at the end it is still projected that in the range of 40-50 million individuals will remain uncovered.
All this for absolutely zilch.
Working as intended.
“The debate is over. What difference does it make at this point?”
Yep. Bottom line is that they needed to cancel policies in order to force people to buy this sh*t.
Some joined because their insurability factor of 63 days was lapsing and they had no choice. Others signed on, then transitioned on to other coverage, via work etcetera. Some signed on to a private coverage through, not seeking the tax breaks the government was using to entice folk to sign on.
It would be interesting to know the straight scoop how many people are using Obamacare in the way it was intended.
2 million? 3 million? More? Less?
Ah, but that’s if the actual goal was anything remotely like the stated goal.
When the process could have been done in another way that would have avoided a specific consequence, you can logically say that the consequence was the goal all along.
I agree. The whole thing is set up to fail, in order to bring in socialized medicine. The glitch is that they didn’t plan on being seen as incompetent along the way.
Getting less healthcare for more money. What a deal! Thanks Barry!
Don’t know how, besides sheer arrogance, they missed that “perception” aspect.
I guess they’re relying on the media to help them blame the private insurance companies for the failure.
That’s what fascists do, and it’s why they prefer fascism to communism. They control, but any negatives can be blamed on the “owners”.
I believe you have correctly diagnosed it: sheer arrogance. Every single person in the Administration drips with it.
We can really build up the numbers when the IRS and HHS starts sending SWAT teams to arrest people who refuse to buy this crap.
Here’s another news flash! Obamacare made many Medicare Advantage and Medigap Policies go away. I was informed by my MA carrier last October that my policy was being terminated because it didn’t conform to Obamacare “standards.”
They didn’t offer me an alternative, they just gave me a Medicare website to find myself a new policy. I have, and I am paying more (but just think if as a 73 year old male, I get pregnant, I’m covered). But consider that there are probably millions of seniors who experienced similar cancellations solely because of FUBOcare and we are not included in the numbers of people affected by this terrible law.
RE: but just think if as a 73 year old male, I get pregnant, I’m covered
Did Jay Leno use that in his routine? :)
“RE: but just think if as a 73 year old male, I get pregnant, I’m covered
Did Jay Leno use that in his routine? :)”
Don’t know, but I’ve met Jay and he’s a nowhere near 73.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.