Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

MaggieD said:

Yep. Inmates getting coverage under ObamaCare, as states shift cost to feds | Fox News

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

I have no idea who Heidi Harris is and don't watch MSNBC but if that is what she said she made a great point. With all the technology today and three years to implement the program why is it that we have no idea who makes up those 7 million? Those eligible for Medicaid, those who lost their insurance because of, prisoners who have registered, and those who have registered but not paid the premiums reduce the number of signups and doesn't help the true uninsured number

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

I'm still shaking my head on the prisoners thing. I didn't even know that until Maggie posted the link.

Click to expand...

sangha said:

I won't hold my breath but my dog Princess may be disappointed. She loves strangers

She thinks they're delicious!

Click to expand...

Five million Americans, including some 900,000 Californians, were notified by their insurance companies late last year that their plans were being canceled, mostly because they didn't conform to the requirements of the new law. And many of them were outraged.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

I have no idea who Heidi Harris is and don't watch MSNBC but if that is what she said she made a great point. With all the technology today and three years to implement the program why is it that we have no idea who makes up those 7 million? Those eligible for Medicaid, those who lost their insurance because of, prisoners who have registered, and those who have registered but not paid the premiums reduce the number of signups and doesn't help the true uninsured number

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

There are so many holes in that 7 million number that it could be called Swiss Cheese results and is nothing more than partisan fodder designed to appeal to the poorly informed

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Holy ****.

Click to expand...

NIMBY said:

You really need to get out to Vegas, like the preferred Governors did to the Sheldon Adelson primary.
I believe Heidi's on 720 AM and you can get it at night, like I get Denver and Texas cities from N.C. IL.

I have no quibble with your multiple shots from the hip that you bring up.
"Get them on a spread sheet and get back to me" is what I say to both sides, not like you, who blames only one side .

Click to expand...

NIMBY said:

How well do you think whining about the truthfulness of the numbers from Rush, Glen and Sean will help in the election ? :lamo

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

Why do you believe anything this Administration tells you? .

Click to expand...

minnie616 said:

I am NOT basing my opinion on just what the administration tells us.

I have done a lot research. I am probaly one of a handful of people on this thread who have read more than 30 pages of the heathcare act when it was first passed.

Since my husband is self employed we have have been responsible for our full cost of our families insurance for over 40 years.

I am aware of how much heathcare has skyrocketed in the last 40 years.

It was very important to me that those with pre existing conditions be able to buy health insurance.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

...
Why do you believe the Govt. will be able to lower costs in our economic model based upon capitalism?

Click to expand...

minnie616 said:

Since we do not have a public option in the ACA I do not expect it to lower our healthcare costs, but I will be more than somewhat happy if it slows the curve down and I am very happy that people with pre existing conditions can now buy healthcare insurance.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

Give me an example of any public option program where there is incentive to lower costs and where costs have actually been lowered? You put a lot of faith in a govt. that has generated a 17.3 trillion dollar debt, why?

Click to expand...

sangha said:

California's tort reform law.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

And that is a Federal Govt. program? Sounds to me like you believe states can do it better too

Click to expand...

sangha said:

You asked about a govt program and didn't specify federal

Click to expand...

minnie616 said:

Since we do not have a public option in the ACA I do not expect it to lower our healthcare costs, but I will be more than somewhat happy if it slows the curve down and I am very happy that people with pre existing conditions can now buy healthcare insurance.

Click to expand...

Despite its much heralded presence in Britain’s health care, the problems of the NHS are severe, notorious, and increasingly scandalous in the most fundamental attributes of any health care system: access and quality.

Waits for care are shocking in the NHS, frequently exposed by British media reports, and long proven by facts, yet they go virtually unreported in the U.S. For instance, in 2010, about one-third of England’s NHS patients deemed ill enough by their GP waited more than one additional month for a specialist appointment. In 2008-2009, the average wait for CABG (coronary artery bypass) in the UK was 57 days. And the impact of this delayed access was obvious. For example, twice as many bypass procedures and four times as many angioplasties are performed in patients needing surgery for heart disease per capita in the U.S. as in the UK. Another study showed that more UK residents die (per capita) than Americans from heart attack despite the far higher burden of risk factors in Americans for these fatal events. In fact, the heart disease mortality rate in England was 36 percent higher than that in the U.S.

Access to medical care is so poor in the NHS that the government was compelled to issue England’s 2010 “NHS Constitution” in which it was declared that no patient should wait beyond 18 weeks for treatment – four months – after GP referral. Defined as acceptable by bureaucrats who set them, such targets propagate the illusion of meeting quality standards despite seriously endangering their citizens, all of whom share an equally poor access to health care. Even given this extraordinarily long leash, the number of patients not being treated within that time soared by 43% to almost 30,000 last January. BBC subsequently discovered that many patients initially assessed as needing surgery were later re-categorized by the hospital so that they could be removed from waiting lists to distort the already unconscionable delays. Royal College of Surgeons President Norman Williams, calling this “outrageous,” charged that hospitals are cutting their waiting lists by artificially raising thresholds.

Beyond access, the quality of medical care in the NHS, based on data in the medical journals, is unacceptable. Comparing data for cancer, heart disease, and stroke, the most common sources of sickness and death in the U.S. and Europe, and the diseases that generate the highest medical expenditures, we see the overt failure of the NHS and its socialist relatives.


· For cancer, American patients, both men and women, have superior survival rates for all major types. For some specifics, per Verdecchia in Lancet Oncology, the breast cancer mortality rate is 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom than in the U.S.; prostate cancer mortality rates are strikingly worse in the UK than in the U.S.; mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher than in the U.S.

· Even given the lifestyle-related disadvantages inherent to American patients (physically inactive, obese, and with high blood pressure – all significantly higher than comparison countries), studies also prove better medical care for stroke in the U.S. than in Britain. In 2010, the British scientific journal Lancet Neurology stated in its editorial about stroke treatment entitled “Time is Brain for Carotid Endarterectomy” that “early intervention is crucial for a good outcome,” yet “two- thirds of patients (in the UK) face an unacceptable delay.”

· To assess the quality of care for high blood pressure, or hypertension, we must look at two sets of data. First, once hypertension is diagnosed, is it treated or does it go untreated? About two-thirds to three-fourths of patients with high blood pressure in England were left untreated, compared to less than half in the U.S. Second, hypertension treatment in the UK has been inferior and less successful in controlling blood pressure than the U.S. One comparison showed that blood pressure control was best in the U.S., outperforming Canada, England, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Spain. In a separate analysis of over 21,000 patients already visiting doctors for hypertension, the best rate of success was in the U.S. (63 percent), compared with 31 percent to 46 percent of patients in England and the European countries.

· No disease has more far-reaching and more serious consequences than diabetes, with a risk for death about twice that without diabetes, and significantly worse disease outcomes. In 2011, the World Health Organization determined that of seven countries including England and Scotland, the U.S. had the highest proportion of adult diabetics who were actually receiving treatment for their known diabetes, as well as for their hypertension and high cholesterol. The U.S. also performed best by several different quality measures, approximately twice the success of England and Scotland.

Add to those illustrious facts the heinous scandals about the quality of care in NHS hospitals that are repeatedly discovered, investigated, and catalogued with promises of change. These scandals, like the Staffordshire Trust debacle where between 400 and 1,200 neglected and abused patients died in squalid and degrading circumstances, are directly caused by the very culture of the NHS, as overtly admitted even by the UK government at its highest levels.

Happy Birthday To Great Britain's Increasingly Scandalous National Health Service - Forbes

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

This is a thread about ACA and never dreamed I would have to signify federal, state or local in a thread about a Federal Program called ACA. There are a lot of state programs that work, many of them in TX but that reality is ignored by Obama supporters. TX has a very good Tort Reform bill as well.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

This is a thread about ACA and never dreamed I would have to signify federal, state or local in a thread about a Federal Program called ACA. There are a lot of state programs that work, many of them in TX but that reality is ignored by Obama supporters. TX has a very good Tort Reform bill as well.

Click to expand...

Greenbeard said:

That's good! The ACA is funding a number of states to design and launch reforms that can hold down costs and improve quality: State Innovation Models Initiative.

Click to expand...

sangha said:

So you want to know when the govt passed an ACA bill?

It was in 2009

Click to expand...

clownboy said:

Obviously YOU didn't read it. It's using the same data we've had but extrapolating falsely, just as the Obama admin has been doing. Take this for example:



Actually it's not one third, it's 27% as they state later. That means only 27% of those "signed up" were previously uninsured. AND signing up doesn't mean ****. Read that last sentence again and try to assililate the information. What makes it meaningless is that not one of them is insured until they start paying. How many of that 27% are actually insured right now? The article and the Obama admin isn't telling.

The entire article is just a remunging of numbers to make them appear to be greater than they were. Btw, have you forgotten this entire fanderall was to insure the 40+ million uninsured in this country without losing ground on the vast majority who were?

Click to expand...

upsideguy said:

Reference is again made to the LA Times article (and there are others that say the same), that you obviously you did not read or comprehend else would you would not be able to make such an absurd post....

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

The primary objective of the PPACA was to reduce the number of uninsured in this country.... The article pointed out that was done in 3 distinct ways (its not all about the exchanges):

1) People purchasing healthcare through the various state exchanges. As of March 31, there were 7.1 million people that have selected policies (actually making a purchase decision; not simply registering in the exchange). While some of those will not be fully paid for (bad sales), no one yet knows how much of that will occur. Studies have shown that between 27% (McKinnsey study of Feburary) and higher (Rand study of March) were previously uninsured. Call it 1/3 and call it 6.0 million purchases and you see the exchanges led to 2.0 million previously uninsureds now being insured

From the LA Times article:Precise figures on national health coverage will not be available for months. But available data indicate:

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

• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.

2) The expansion of Medicaid allowed 4.5 million previously uninsured to be insured:

From the LA Times article:
• At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs, according to Rand's unpublished survey data, which were shared with The Times. That tracks with estimates from Avalere Health, a consulting firm that is closely following the law's implementation.

3) Allowing our sons and daughters to continue on family plans until age 26 has insured 3.0 million "invincibles"

From the LA Times article:
• An additional 3 million young adults have gained coverage in recent years through a provision of the law that enables dependent children to remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26, according to national health insurance surveys from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

So, 2.0 million uninsured from exchanges + 4.5 million from Medicaid expansion + 3.0 million on expansion of coverage to 26.... is 9.5 million previously uninsureds now with insurance.

In six months (the first year of operation), we have eradicated between 20 and 25% of the uninsured problem... this does not include the underinsured that previously had substandard plans that now have real insurance.... It also is in spite the Republicans best efforts to keep people from getting health insurance by killing state exchanges (which were more effective the national exchanges)

Also in the LA Times article:
Rand has been polling 3,300 Americans monthly about their insurance choices since last fall. Researchers found that the share of adults ages 18 to 64 without health insurance has declined from 20.9% last fall to 16.6% as of March 22.

Its having an impact...

Is the PPACA a success? Hardly. While the results are encouraging, we are tackling a big problem (healthcare deficiency) with a long term solution. We are only months into it. Only a fool would draw a conclusion at this point.

Is the PPACA a failure? Hardly. The early results are encouraging, but we are tackling a big problem (healthcare deficiency) with a long term solution. We are only months into it. Only a fool would draw a conclusion at this point.


None of this includes the 9 million people that brought health insurance directly from insurance companies (you do not have to use the exchange). Studies, however, find these people are simply replacing one policy with another.... such as those 1 million people that supposedly had their policies cancelled.

Also in the LA Times article:
• About 9 million people have bought health plans directly from insurers, instead of using the marketplaces, Rand found. The vast majority of these people were previously insured.

• Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates.


Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

Click to expand...

From the LA Times articlerecise figures on national health coverage will not be available for months. But available data indicate

Click to expand...

upsideguy said:

Reference is again made to the LA Times article (and there are others that say the same), that you obviously you did not read or comprehend else would you would not be able to make such an absurd post....

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

The primary objective of the PPACA was to reduce the number of uninsured in this country.... The article pointed out that was done in 3 distinct ways (its not all about the exchanges):

1) People purchasing healthcare through the various state exchanges. As of March 31, there were 7.1 million people that have selected policies (actually making a purchase decision; not simply registering in the exchange). While some of those will not be fully paid for (bad sales), no one yet knows how much of that will occur. Studies have shown that between 27% (McKinnsey study of Feburary) and higher (Rand study of March) were previously uninsured. Call it 1/3 and call it 6.0 million purchases and you see the exchanges led to 2.0 million previously uninsureds now being insured

From the LA Times article:Precise figures on national health coverage will not be available for months. But available data indicate:

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

• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.

2) The expansion of Medicaid allowed 4.5 million previously uninsured to be insured:

From the LA Times article:
• At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs, according to Rand's unpublished survey data, which were shared with The Times. That tracks with estimates from Avalere Health, a consulting firm that is closely following the law's implementation.

3) Allowing our sons and daughters to continue on family plans until age 26 has insured 3.0 million "invincibles"

From the LA Times article:
• An additional 3 million young adults have gained coverage in recent years through a provision of the law that enables dependent children to remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26, according to national health insurance surveys from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

So, 2.0 million uninsured from exchanges + 4.5 million from Medicaid expansion + 3.0 million on expansion of coverage to 26.... is 9.5 million previously uninsureds now with insurance.

In six months (the first year of operation), we have eradicated between 20 and 25% of the uninsured problem... this does not include the underinsured that previously had substandard plans that now have real insurance.... It also is in spite the Republicans best efforts to keep people from getting health insurance by killing state exchanges (which were more effective the national exchanges)

Also in the LA Times article:
Rand has been polling 3,300 Americans monthly about their insurance choices since last fall. Researchers found that the share of adults ages 18 to 64 without health insurance has declined from 20.9% last fall to 16.6% as of March 22.

Its having an impact...

Is the PPACA a success? Hardly. While the results are encouraging, we are tackling a big problem (healthcare deficiency) with a long term solution. We are only months into it. Only a fool would draw a conclusion at this point.

Is the PPACA a failure? Hardly. The early results are encouraging, but we are tackling a big problem (healthcare deficiency) with a long term solution. We are only months into it. Only a fool would draw a conclusion at this point.


None of this includes the 9 million people that brought health insurance directly from insurance companies (you do not have to use the exchange). Studies, however, find these people are simply replacing one policy with another.... such as those 1 million people that supposedly had their policies cancelled.

Also in the LA Times article:
• About 9 million people have bought health plans directly from insurers, instead of using the marketplaces, Rand found. The vast majority of these people were previously insured.

• Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates.


Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

Click to expand...