This chart gives us a clear idea that Hawaii is probably the wrong place to receive medical attention as the costs are extremely high compared to other states. It also clearly shows that it was a mistake allowing the states to create their own exchanges. They have been less effective and costlier than the ones handled in the federal level.
Peter: California for ages has run its own version of Medicare, and at a lower price than they would be paying the federal gov for the same services. And Hawaii set up its own “exchange” 40 years ago. This chart does NOT reflect the average cost per patient in Hawaii; only the cost on the exchange. Because of the extent of coverage (a much higher percentage of hawaiians are covered than other state populations), these high priced individual policies are balanced out by subsidized state and federal insurance. But no doubt HEALTH CARE IS EXPENSIVE!! WE NEED TO BRING PRICES DOWN! in every state.
What can be done in Hawaii? The costs are exuberantly high and unaffordable. The healthcare reform should have been regionalized, in order to address the specific issues of the different states. The mandates that work in California will not work in Hawaii, and those that work in Hawaii won’t work in Massachusetts.
I agree, this is proof that you don’t need a big government but rather we need one that works intelligently. Instead of trying to impose a reform that won’t work at a national level, the federal government should have allowed states to come up with alternatives that suited their state. That way tax payer money wouldn’t be wasted, or at least it would be wasted in a more efficient way.
Obamacare is placing a burden on taxpayers, but it is much worse when we look at the amount of money that is being directed to the individual states. This is a creative way of hiding the true amount of money that tax payers are paying for this faulty program.
4.2 million Individuals have selected a marketplace plan, this is less than expected by the administration, especially now that the deadline is looming. This shows that apparently people weren’t as eager for insurance as some believed.
“4.2 million Individuals have selected a marketplace plan”
And Brandon, that’s less than the 6+ million people Obamacare forced to give up insurance they already had.
So if my arithmetic is correct, America now has more people uninsured than we did before Obamacare.
We went backwards. But we spent an ocean of money to do it. Definition of “success” in Washington D.C.
[ps – notice that Kentucky and Minnesota enrolled exactly the same number of people. Sure, that’s possible. But given all the other Obamacare data misadventures – how likely?]
I’ve only done a little research but the 4.2 million is only counting people who have selected a health exchange through healthcare.gov. Many other people were able to sign up for health care through the expanded medicaid, defaulted into different health care plans, and over 2 million young adults (like myself) were able to get healthcare under their parents’ insurance. So Mr. Boehner and your claim that we have gone backwards is false.
But the Obama administration was aiming for around 7 million individuals and it is looking like 5 million by the 3/31 deadline. In those regards, the government fell very short of expectations.
Tom, you say that “the 4.2 million is only counting people who have selected a health exchange through healthcare.gov.”
Rilly? The chart above shows the total number of people who have enrolled thru ANY exchange is about 4.2 million. The total includes the states that run their own exchanges, and the federal exchanges in healthcare.gov. You can see that right on the chart.
Maybe your objections would carry some weight if you could provide your sources so that others can analyze them (it does not help that you misinterpreted the data everyone can already see, above.)
John, I am having trouble finding where in the chart above it shows 4.2 million, especially since it is only a chart of state-run exchanges.
Either way, I am saying exactly what you are saying. 4.2 million represents the number of people who have signed up through state and federal exchanges. However, many people did not have to go through exchanges to get new insurance. So they are not part of the 4.2 million. This means, the 4.2 million doesn’t include people on their parents’ plan, default plans, and medicaid.
“please let me know where you found 4.2 million in the chart above.”
Really, Tom?
Well, first you have to notice that there is no total on the above chart. Then you have to notice that there is a line on the chart for “healthcare.gov”
Then you have to, you know, add them up.
The state-run exchanges total to 1,644,154. Including healthcare.gov brings the total to 4,265,240. That’s the 4.2 million.
Your first source says “the administration has not said how many of those enrolling through the ObamaCare exchanges were previously uninsured.” For example, McKinsey & Co. estimates that “just a quarter of those who did sign up for coverage in the marketplaces were previously uninsured.” That means the government’s number is way overstated.
Your first source also cites The New York Times reporting that jails and prisons are enrolling certain inmates to Medicaid – thus transferring the cost from the states to the federal government; clearly these inmates were already insured. This also means the government’s number is overstated.
Your second source mentions children who obtained coverage to age 26 under their parents’ insurance. But that coverage began more than 4 years ago – in 2010 – and therefore those numbers are already excluded from the number of total uninsured as of the beginning of 2013:
In other words, most of these children already had coverage thru their parents’ insurance as of the end of 2013. They are already counted. It’s wrong to count them again when trying to figure out the current change to the total number of uninsured.
By the way, the very first paragraph in your third source says “just 4.2 million Americans have enrolled in a policy, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.”
There’s that pesky 4.2 million again. You didn’t notice it in your own source.
I did not bother to add those numbers up. That’s my bad.
The best estimates about how many people have actually paid their premiums is around 80% so it’s a lot lower than the number above.
Right under the paragraph you quoted, it also says “Now that over 4.2 million Americans have enrolled in private coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace, on top of the millions who have received coverage through Medicaid, more and more Americans are gaining the peace of mind and financial security that comes with having health insurance,”. Expanded Medicaid isn’t included in the 4.2 million.
I would really recommend you going to the second source I listed. I found that piece on a top conservative blog because it is a fact-checking article and not politically motivated in any way.
As far as the children under 26 statement at the bottom. In both of your sources, it states that the data is statistically insignificant so it is hard to make conclusions off of that.
What we learned from all of this: I need to take the time to add, there are, in fact, there are going to be millions more insured than before ACA.
Not sure what this table exactly means. I am assuming that this table is looking at the state-run exchanges, but it doesn’t include all of the states. Why are some missing (New Hampshire, New Mexico, Idaho)?
Is there data for how the partnership and federal exchanges are going as well?
The listing for Oregon ignores the fact that the online exchange still doesn’t work and all plans purchased were done with paper applications and manually processed.
Stunning! Illustrates the fact that government designed programs have no real value, and in fact are very wasteful.
The cost of marketing, outreach, and enrollment for private sector (“commercial”) plans is much lower per capita, and in fact CMS itself places limits on marketing and enrollment costs of Medicare Advantage plans (why don’t those rules apply here?).
Hasn’t anyone in Congress made a more significant issue out of this? This goes to the heart of the problem with this “one-size-fits-all” Washington-based, big-government program.
This chart gives us a clear idea that Hawaii is probably the wrong place to receive medical attention as the costs are extremely high compared to other states. It also clearly shows that it was a mistake allowing the states to create their own exchanges. They have been less effective and costlier than the ones handled in the federal level.
“Hawaii is probably the wrong place to receive medical attention as the costs are extremely high compared to other states.”
Peter, the chart lists administrative costs, not medical costs.
Peter: California for ages has run its own version of Medicare, and at a lower price than they would be paying the federal gov for the same services. And Hawaii set up its own “exchange” 40 years ago. This chart does NOT reflect the average cost per patient in Hawaii; only the cost on the exchange. Because of the extent of coverage (a much higher percentage of hawaiians are covered than other state populations), these high priced individual policies are balanced out by subsidized state and federal insurance. But no doubt HEALTH CARE IS EXPENSIVE!! WE NEED TO BRING PRICES DOWN! in every state.
What can be done in Hawaii? The costs are exuberantly high and unaffordable. The healthcare reform should have been regionalized, in order to address the specific issues of the different states. The mandates that work in California will not work in Hawaii, and those that work in Hawaii won’t work in Massachusetts.
I agree, this is proof that you don’t need a big government but rather we need one that works intelligently. Instead of trying to impose a reform that won’t work at a national level, the federal government should have allowed states to come up with alternatives that suited their state. That way tax payer money wouldn’t be wasted, or at least it would be wasted in a more efficient way.
Apparently the government ignores the disparities among 50 states. They just want to turn this nation to “Republic of America”…
Obamacare is placing a burden on taxpayers, but it is much worse when we look at the amount of money that is being directed to the individual states. This is a creative way of hiding the true amount of money that tax payers are paying for this faulty program.
4.2 million Individuals have selected a marketplace plan, this is less than expected by the administration, especially now that the deadline is looming. This shows that apparently people weren’t as eager for insurance as some believed.
“4.2 million Individuals have selected a marketplace plan”
And Brandon, that’s less than the 6+ million people Obamacare forced to give up insurance they already had.
So if my arithmetic is correct, America now has more people uninsured than we did before Obamacare.
We went backwards. But we spent an ocean of money to do it. Definition of “success” in Washington D.C.
[ps – notice that Kentucky and Minnesota enrolled exactly the same number of people. Sure, that’s possible. But given all the other Obamacare data misadventures – how likely?]
I’ve only done a little research but the 4.2 million is only counting people who have selected a health exchange through healthcare.gov. Many other people were able to sign up for health care through the expanded medicaid, defaulted into different health care plans, and over 2 million young adults (like myself) were able to get healthcare under their parents’ insurance. So Mr. Boehner and your claim that we have gone backwards is false.
But the Obama administration was aiming for around 7 million individuals and it is looking like 5 million by the 3/31 deadline. In those regards, the government fell very short of expectations.
Tom, you say that “the 4.2 million is only counting people who have selected a health exchange through healthcare.gov.”
Rilly? The chart above shows the total number of people who have enrolled thru ANY exchange is about 4.2 million. The total includes the states that run their own exchanges, and the federal exchanges in healthcare.gov. You can see that right on the chart.
Maybe your objections would carry some weight if you could provide your sources so that others can analyze them (it does not help that you misinterpreted the data everyone can already see, above.)
John, I am having trouble finding where in the chart above it shows 4.2 million, especially since it is only a chart of state-run exchanges.
Either way, I am saying exactly what you are saying. 4.2 million represents the number of people who have signed up through state and federal exchanges. However, many people did not have to go through exchanges to get new insurance. So they are not part of the 4.2 million. This means, the 4.2 million doesn’t include people on their parents’ plan, default plans, and medicaid.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/12/administration-lagging-far-behind-obamacare-enrollment-goals/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/17/boehners-claim-that-obamacare-has-resulted-in-a-net-loss-of-people-with-health-insurance/
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/things-obamacare-deadline/story?id=22945074
However, you can look up plenty more using google.
Again, please let me know where you found 4.2 million in the chart above.
“please let me know where you found 4.2 million in the chart above.”
Really, Tom?
Well, first you have to notice that there is no total on the above chart. Then you have to notice that there is a line on the chart for “healthcare.gov”
Then you have to, you know, add them up.
The state-run exchanges total to 1,644,154. Including healthcare.gov brings the total to 4,265,240. That’s the 4.2 million.
Your first source says “the administration has not said how many of those enrolling through the ObamaCare exchanges were previously uninsured.” For example, McKinsey & Co. estimates that “just a quarter of those who did sign up for coverage in the marketplaces were previously uninsured.” That means the government’s number is way overstated.
Your first source also cites The New York Times reporting that jails and prisons are enrolling certain inmates to Medicaid – thus transferring the cost from the states to the federal government; clearly these inmates were already insured. This also means the government’s number is overstated.
Your second source mentions children who obtained coverage to age 26 under their parents’ insurance. But that coverage began more than 4 years ago – in 2010 – and therefore those numbers are already excluded from the number of total uninsured as of the beginning of 2013:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/census-uninsured-2012_n_3941339.html
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/september/17/census-numbers-uninsured-numbers-remain-nearly-unchanged.aspx
In other words, most of these children already had coverage thru their parents’ insurance as of the end of 2013. They are already counted. It’s wrong to count them again when trying to figure out the current change to the total number of uninsured.
By the way, the very first paragraph in your third source says “just 4.2 million Americans have enrolled in a policy, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.”
There’s that pesky 4.2 million again. You didn’t notice it in your own source.
I did not bother to add those numbers up. That’s my bad.
The best estimates about how many people have actually paid their premiums is around 80% so it’s a lot lower than the number above.
Right under the paragraph you quoted, it also says “Now that over 4.2 million Americans have enrolled in private coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace, on top of the millions who have received coverage through Medicaid, more and more Americans are gaining the peace of mind and financial security that comes with having health insurance,”. Expanded Medicaid isn’t included in the 4.2 million.
I would really recommend you going to the second source I listed. I found that piece on a top conservative blog because it is a fact-checking article and not politically motivated in any way.
As far as the children under 26 statement at the bottom. In both of your sources, it states that the data is statistically insignificant so it is hard to make conclusions off of that.
What we learned from all of this: I need to take the time to add, there are, in fact, there are going to be millions more insured than before ACA.
Good talk John
“What we learned from all of this: I need to take the time to add, there are, in fact, there are going to be millions more insured than before ACA.”
I agree with the first part.
Government Idea=One size fits all.
Not sure what this table exactly means. I am assuming that this table is looking at the state-run exchanges, but it doesn’t include all of the states. Why are some missing (New Hampshire, New Mexico, Idaho)?
Is there data for how the partnership and federal exchanges are going as well?
They may have selected plans, but have they paid?
The listing for Oregon ignores the fact that the online exchange still doesn’t work and all plans purchased were done with paper applications and manually processed.
Excellent point, thank you for pointing that out!
Hawaii has had an employer mandate on health insurance for years. There were fewer uninsureds to start with.
But that did not stop their state government from letting out huge contracts.
In Oregon, MN, and elsewhere, the management of the exchanges was pathetic and wasteful.
Stunning! Illustrates the fact that government designed programs have no real value, and in fact are very wasteful.
The cost of marketing, outreach, and enrollment for private sector (“commercial”) plans is much lower per capita, and in fact CMS itself places limits on marketing and enrollment costs of Medicare Advantage plans (why don’t those rules apply here?).
Hasn’t anyone in Congress made a more significant issue out of this? This goes to the heart of the problem with this “one-size-fits-all” Washington-based, big-government program.