Affordable Care Act "obamacare", on track to meet enrollee goal

Indigo5

beezzer

Indigo5

Wrabbit2000

On a realistic note...We were sold this in 2009 on the idea it would insure the 20-30 million uninsured people in America at that time. That was a few % of unemployment ago...and many millions who had it then, don't now. Given that....We're saying that they only have 1/4 to 1/3rd of the original uninsured even signed up, at the "drop dead" deadline where everyone not otherwise covered should absolutely be entered into the computers of this one?

The 7 Million + number is just for the Federal Exchange...It does not include

those who got insurance via Medicaid Expansion, nor
those that got insurance from State Level ACA Exchanges...Something like 14 States
those who got insurance directly from Insurance Providers due to them no longer being able to deny pre-existing conditions.
those who joined or stayed on their parents plan as the law affords..

Hell...California alone added a couple million via the Medicaid expansion alone.

So...back to the 20-30 million uninsured vs. 7 Million...what do you think the real number is of those that are now covered taking into account the above?

we will know after a few months and several polls, but I think logic would put the number closer to 18-22 Million adding in all of the above. Just a guess.

edit on 1-4-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Source, please.

Not that I don't believe you, but. . . well. . . . I don't believe you.

Thanks in advance.

*hugs*

beez

Alas Beez...I expected you to be educated on the topic you are debating? What specifically from my post do you doubt? Because each and every item is common knowledge as at your disposal via Google? I will indulge you if you want to be specific?

That would be awesome!

Thank you for providing sources for your information!

neo96
reply to post by beezzer

 

Source, please. Not that I don't believe you, but. . . well. . . . I don't believe you.

That is a wise call.

Because if the ACA was such the raging 'success' they are trying out to make it be.

Those figures would be scrolling across the tv screens, and on the whitehouse site as we speak.

They are not.

I thought the same thing, but I suspect it's about timing. Let the GOP plant their feet and go nuts, dig in and then respond.

Here are just a few examples of folks that got insurance via Obamacare that are not included in the 7 Million number..

Where the states stand on Medicaid expansion
EXPANDING COVERAGE (26 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)
•Arizona: On June 17, 2013, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed into law legislation that will expand Medicaid to an additional 350,000 people in the state. The signing came after Brewer called a surprise special session on the 2014 budget and Medicaid to try to resolve a deadlock among lawmakers on the two issues.
•Arkansas: Gov. Mike Beebe (D) on April 23, 2013, signed the state's expansion plan into law. Under the plan, Arkansas would accept the federal money for Medicaid expansion provided through the ACA but would use it to buy private insurance for about 250,000 eligible low-income residents. The federal government approved the plan in September 2013.
•California: Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on June 27, 2013, signed legislation that would expand the state's Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, to more than 1.4 million additional residents under the ACA.
•Colorado: Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) signed the expansion into law on May 13, 2013. He says that the expansion will save the state $280 million over 10 years and help cover an additional 160,000 adults.
•Connecticut: Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) was among the first governors to sign up for the Medicaid expansion after the ACA was enacted. The state was one of five states that opted to expand eligibility early.
•Delaware: Gov. Jack Markell (D) in January 2013 reiterated his support for the Medicaid expansion, including an additional $35.8 million for Medicaid in his FY 2014 spending plan. On July 1, 2013, Markell signed a FY 2014 budget plan that includes $29.8 million to "fund the State's Medicaid commitment."
•District of Columbia: D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D) in a statement on June 28, 2012, said, "The District is not at risk of losing any Medicaid funding as a result of [the Supreme Court] ruling, because District officials have already begun implementation of the ACA's Medicaid-expansion provisions and will continue to implement the expansion." D.C. sought permission from the federal government to expand its Medicaid program on May 13, 2010. The move expanded Medicaid to an additional 35,000 residents.
•Hawaii: Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) has said his state will participate in the expansion. In a statement on June 28, 2012, Abercrombie said, "The Affordable Care Act is our ally in this effort" to "to support a healthcare system that ensures high quality, safety and sustainable costs." According to the Department of Human Services, the state is expanding Medicaid eligibility through the ACA.
•Illinois: Gov. Pat Quinn (D) signed Medicaid expansion into law on July 22, 2013. Approximately 342,000 low-income Illinois residents will be newly insured under the expansion.
•Iowa: On Dec. 12, 2013, Gov. Terry Branstad (R) announced that his administration and the White House had agreed on the finals details of his plan to expand Medicaid. Two days earlier, CMS approved Iowa's alternate expansion proposal, which would allow the state to use federal funding under the ACA to help more than 100,000 low-income residents purchase private health coverage through the new Iowa Health and Wellness Plan. Branstad also proposed a small additional premium for certain beneficiaries. Under the agreement, Iowa will levy the additional premium on individuals with incomes exceeding 50% of the federal poverty level beginning in 2015. The state promised that it will not drop individuals' coverage if they fail to make payments.
•Kentucky: On May 9, 2013, Gov. Steve Beshear (D) said that expanding Medicaid is the right choice for Kentucky, noting that it would halve the number of uninsured in the state. He reiterated that sentiment in a Sept. 26, 2013, opinion piece in the New York Times. On Sept. 3, 2013, a federal judge cleared the way for the state to participate in the Affordable Care Act, ruling that the governor has the authority to expand Medicaid and establish an insurance exchange.
•Maryland: On May 5, 2013, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) signed into law HB 228 to fully implement the Affordable Care Act.
•Massachusetts: On July 5, 2013, Gov. Deval Patrick (D) signed into law HB 3452, requiring Massachusetts to come into compliance with new federal regulations under the ACA. On July 12, 2013, Patrick signed into law the state's FY 2014 budget, which supports full implementation of the Affordable Care Act, including the Medicaid expansion.
•Michigan: On Sept. 3, 2013, the Michigan House voted 75-32 to grant final approval to a bill that would expand the state's Medicaid program beginning in April 2014. Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the bill into law on Sept. 16, 2013. The proposal contains cost-sharing provisions for Medicaid beneficiaries; it received federal approval in December.
•Minnesota: Gov. Mark Dayton (D) in February 2013 signed legislation that expanded Medicaid to an additional 35,000 childless, low-income adults in the state.
•Nevada: Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) in December 2012 became the first GOP governor to commit his state to expanding Medicaid under the ACA. According to Sandoval's announcement, nearly 78,000 Nevadans would be covered by the expansion.
•New Hampshire: On March 27, 2014, Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) signed bipartisan legislation (SB 413) to expand Medicaid coverage to an estimated 50,000 low-income state residents. Starting in April 2014, the state will move eligible residents into Medicaid programs. The plan then calls for enrolling those residents in private coverage options through the ACA insurance exchange in 2016, which would require a federal waiver. The law requires the state to receive that waiver by March 31, 2015; failure to do so would result in termination of the program three months later.
•New Jersey: Gov. Chris Christie (R) on June 28, 2013, signed a state budget that includes $227 million for Medicaid expansion in the state. However, he vetoed legislation that would have made the expansion permanent in the state.
•New Mexico: Gov. Susana Martinez (R) on Jan. 9, 2013, announced that the state would participate in the Medicaid expansion.
•New York: On June 28, 2012, in an announcement immediately following the Supreme Court's ruling on the ACA, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said the state would participate in the expansion.
•North Dakota: Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) in April 2013 signed legislation expanding Medicaid in the state.
•Ohio: The state's Controlling Board—a special bipartisan legislative panel—approved Medicaid expansion in 5-2 vote on Oct. 21, 2013, allowing Gov. John Kasich (R) to expand the program on Jan. 1, 2014, without approval from Ohio's Republican-controlled Legislature. Conservative lawmakers have pledged to mount a fierce legal campaign against the move.
•Oregon: The state has moved forward on Medicaid expansion with the support of Gov. John Kitzhaber (D). Starting on Jan. 1, 2014, state residents earning up to 138% FPL will qualify for Medicaid, up from 100% FPL in 2013.
•Rhode Island: On July 3, 2013, about one week before the state General Assembly adjourned for the year, Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) signed a fiscal year 2014 budget measure that included a plan to expand Medicaid, which he endorsed in June 2012 and outlined in his 2014 budget proposal.
•Vermont: Health Care Access Commissioner Mark Larson in July 2012 said that Vermont would receive federal funds to expand its Medicaid program under the ACA. The expansion is expected to insure an additional 47,000 state residents.
•Washington: Gov. Jay Inslee (D) on June 30, 2013, signed a state budget that would expand Medicaid in the state.
•West Virginia: Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) in May 2013 announced that the state would expand Medicaid, extending coverage to an additional 91,500 state residents.

www.advisory.com.../1/

College age kids staying on their parents plans via Obamacare vs. aged out?

Last year, an estimated 7.8 million adults between the ages of 19 and 25 were able to either join or stay on their parents' plans, according to the Commonwealth Fund's 2013 annual tracking survey.

www.kaiserhealthnews.org...


NOW...I fully expect the Right wing here to go banana's simply because I provided numbers to back up my claim vs. the typical BS I see on the other side.

beezzer

Indigo5

beezzer

Indigo5

Wrabbit2000

On a realistic note...We were sold this in 2009 on the idea it would insure the 20-30 million uninsured people in America at that time. That was a few % of unemployment ago...and many millions who had it then, don't now. Given that....We're saying that they only have 1/4 to 1/3rd of the original uninsured even signed up, at the "drop dead" deadline where everyone not otherwise covered should absolutely be entered into the computers of this one?

The 7 Million + number is just for the Federal Exchange...It does not include

those who got insurance via Medicaid Expansion, nor
those that got insurance from State Level ACA Exchanges...Something like 14 States
those who got insurance directly from Insurance Providers due to them no longer being able to deny pre-existing conditions.
those who joined or stayed on their parents plan as the law affords..

Hell...California alone added a couple million via the Medicaid expansion alone.

So...back to the 20-30 million uninsured vs. 7 Million...what do you think the real number is of those that are now covered taking into account the above?

we will know after a few months and several polls, but I think logic would put the number closer to 18-22 Million adding in all of the above. Just a guess.

edit on 1-4-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Source, please.

Not that I don't believe you, but. . . well. . . . I don't believe you.

Thanks in advance.

*hugs*

beez

Alas Beez...I expected you to be educated on the topic you are debating? What specifically from my post do you doubt? Because each and every item is common knowledge as at your disposal via Google? I will indulge you if you want to be specific?

That would be awesome!

Thank you for providing sources for your information!

You failed to be specific? Perhaps you'd like to prove to me the earth is round?

reply to post by Indigo5


No. You've been very helpful.

Those numbers appear to illustrate that the folks will be going into Medicare/Medicaid programs and WERE part of the numbers cited by the administration.

AmIright?

beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

No. You've been very helpful.

Those numbers appear to illustrate that the folks will be going into Medicare/Medicaid programs and WERE part of the numbers cited by the administration.

AmIright?

Then they didn't need the ACA to get health insurance.

Because that is why those programs exist in the first place.

The number of people ALREADY on those two programs account for over 100+ million Americans.

medicaid.gov...

67.7 million Americans are currently on medicaid, or 1 in 5 Americans.

www.ncpssm.org...

50 million on medicare.

That is running massive debts, and doesn't pay for itself where medicare surtaxes were created on capital gains, and alternative minmum taxes that were thrown on to investments.

Because people are getting more benefits out than they paid in.

And the ACA just blew those numbers up.

at least by '7 million'.

beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

No. You've been very helpful.

Those numbers appear to illustrate that the folks will be going into Medicare/Medicaid programs and WERE part of the numbers cited by the administration.

AmIright?

In short...No...You are exactly wrong Not sure how I can be more plain? The 7 Million number is sign-ups on the Federal exchange...not state run exchanges...not Medicaid expansion...not college kids staying on their parents policies. Not people who got insurance via non-exchange plans now that the pre-existing condition roadblock is gone.

And since you apparently are opting to just saying crap (and not providing links) and making me provide links to dispute your claims...

The law also includes expanded Medicaid insurance for the poor in many states, but those participants are not part of the sign-up total.

www.cnn.com...

also

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the total number of sign-ups by the midnight deadline was 7,041,000, not counting those given an extension and those who signed up on state-run exchanges

www.foxnews.com...


...I think I am done with this kind of BS discussion...If you don't know the facts...don't debate them or don't make up facts and then demand I provide links.

reply to post by Indigo5


So if the states can produce such exact numbers, why can't the administration?

So many thanks for providing information.

*hugs*

Pour yourself a beverage.

Relax.

The government has your back.

And on a side note...from a pure political observer/strategy perspective...

The reason the Dems haven't touted the much higher numbers including all the numbers (reality) I cited above...is because strategically it is the Birth Certificate debate all over again. They allow the GOP to go banana's and make all types of claims...wait...wait...wait some more for them to fully commit and waste a tonnage of energy and then they pull the rug out before the Mid-terms.

It is timing. All-in the numbers are actually much better than expected...but the Dems won't hammer that home for another couple of months. If I was a GOP strategist, I'd be moving onto other issues apart from ACA...A slight majority don't like the law...but 70% either like it or want it tweaked slightly/fixed. Only 30% want it repealed. That is the repeated outcome of polls. This is a dead horse the GOP are kicking and it's going to cost them come mid-terms...they should "move-on" before then, if for no other reason than strategy.

reply to post by Indigo5


Wow... I don't disagree with you..but just wow..

They allow the GOP to go banana's and make all types of claims...wait...wait...wait some more for them to fully commit and waste a tonnage of energy and then they pull the rug out before the Mid-terms.

So very simply put.... They COULD prevent the hate and discontent of bad or shaky numbers, partisan sniping and what morphs into full verbal and political combat..but choose not to for political gain?

I don't mean to sound shocked, because I'm not on the fact they are doing this. I'm surprised we aren't all equally condemning it.

Yes..they did it on the B/C too, and it's why I'm still sighing when I see people run off on that line of chasing geese. I just think it's a very good example of how the political class is playing us against each other, totally indifferent to the deep chasms and divides it's creating for what will stand long after these men are out of their personal power positions.

The right does it just as well..and it's just plain evil (yes, evil) no matter who does it.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Wow... I don't disagree with you..but just wow..

They allow the GOP to go banana's and make all types of claims...wait...wait...wait some more for them to fully commit and waste a tonnage of energy and then they pull the rug out before the Mid-terms.

So very simply put.... They COULD prevent the hate and discontent of bad or shaky numbers, partisan sniping and what morphs into full verbal and political combat..but choose not to for political gain?

Let's aim for honesty...that is a BIG ask. The Dems could NOT prevent "hate and discontent" or "partisan sniping and what morphs into full verbal and political combat" by totaling (publicly available) numbers and making their case. The "political combat" would continue unabated, it would just move to a LESS DEFENSIBLE pain point than Obamacare...like NSA Spying, Drones etc? As it stands this is a boxing match and the dems have INTENTIONALLY left themselves open for a big fat upper-cut...because they know it is coming and have a plan to duck, weave and land a hook. They want the GOP focused on Obamacare...because they have a solid and growing defense for Obamacare in the actual number totals including everything I summed above, plus they know the poll numbers support keeping the law by a wide margin, even if most people don't like it as it stands. Keep the GOP chasing the topic that they can defend...wait..wait until closer to midterms, then duck and hit back. Again...the GOP should stop kicking the dead-horse now and focus on NSA, Privacy etc. Something that a majority of Americans are actually pissed about.

Wrabbit2000
I don't mean to sound shocked, because I'm not on the fact they are doing this. I'm surprised we aren't all equally condemning it.

Yes..they did it on the B/C too, and it's why I'm still sighing when I see people run off on that line of chasing geese. I just think it's a very good example of how the political class is playing us against each other, totally indifferent to the deep chasms and divides it's creating for what will stand long after these men are out of their personal power positions.

The right does it just as well..and it's just plain evil (yes, evil) no matter who does it.

On the BC issue, it's hard to make a case that people didn't get what they deserved. Yes the Dems used it to their advantage...as would have the GOP. I might be more cynical than you when it comes to expecting better from our Pols. My bottom line is, yes...the bad is on the Dems for milking it to embarrass the birthers, rather than just nuts and bolts immediately laying out Full BC etc. BUT hell...the birthers were much more offensive with the Muslim/Terrorist/Born in Kenya bit for the first POTUS of color...Infinitely more ugly a strategy IMO.

reply to post by Indigo5

Working backward... The B/C is a moot point after the White House docu-dumped the public files and records in 2010. I think its low class to have played it for political games when our nation is distressed in ways I've never seen it, but low class covers both sides of that one with interest.

As far as deliberately playing the passions and anger of the public? I think it's an exceptionally dangerous and reckless game. History rarely shows this line of action working out well for anyone in the ruling class (politicians). It ends in violent and bloody revolt in many specific examples.

Hopefully the next admin won't carry this on to that tragic end. It would be going into the 17th consecutive year of severe mismanagment. Even America has limits.

I think seeing change of any positive sort is a dead issue for a few years anyway.

Wrabbit2000

As far as deliberately playing the passions and anger of the public? I think it's an exceptionally dangerous and reckless game. History rarely shows this line of action working out well for anyone in the ruling class (politicians). It ends in violent and bloody revolt in many specific examples.

Hopefully the next admin won't carry this on to that tragic end. It would be going into the 17th consecutive year of severe mismanagment. Even America has limits.

I think seeing change of any positive sort is a dead issue for a few years anyway.

Ever since Karl Rove struck "gold" in the divide and conquer, button pushing strategy with Gay Marriage and other divisive issues at that time that had little to do with the welfare of the country or it's citizens...it has been standard practice. Identify issues that divide, cultural/religious, and hammer the chisel repeatedly.

The GOP is entrenched in the politics of hate and division. Demonizing the poor (now middle class)...the working man...cops, teachers, immigrants et al. Those are their demons to carry.

The Dems suffer from mild to sometimes severe incompetence and unwarranted arrogance.

If the cynic in me is to choose between Demons for our next administration, I will take the typical incompetence and arrogance we have come to expect from government.

The Dems strategy does divide...But they are choosing the folks that split toward helping the poor, tolerating gays, an approach to immigrants that includes a measure of humanity etc.

You want politicians to cease pushing buttons for political purposes...so do I...but as far as useful discussion, we might as well hope for it to rain chocolate milk.

reply to post by Indigo5

The Dems strategy does divide...But they are choosing the folks that split toward helping the poor, tolerating gays, an approach to immigrants that includes a measure of humanity etc.

They aren't having success at helping people.
Neither side is.
The beauty of the current political system is that both sides can blame the other for their failure.

butcherguy

reply to post by Indigo5

 

The Dems strategy does divide...But they are choosing the folks that split toward helping the poor, tolerating gays, an approach to immigrants that includes a measure of humanity etc.

They aren't having success at helping people.
Neither side is.
The beauty of the current political system is that both sides can blame the other for their failure.

True that...In my political utopia we have the sentiment of the Dems...tolerance of diversity, focused on helping the poor and the middle class (which helps the economy at large) etc. MINUS the costly incompetence....and that competence void is filled by the strict, number crunching, budget conscience, do no more than what is necessary and what we are certain will work attitude of the GOP.

That would be a path toward stability at a minimum and possibly greatness again as a nation..Big dreams widdled down before execution by rational debate, number crunching and logic.

Instead we are shouting because Joe Blow has health insurance just like the other 95% of Developed economies on the globe.
Actually it's step forward, because at least we are shouting less about Joe Blow marrying Jim Smith...really, who gives a rats ass? Why was that ever an issue? No bigger challenges facing this country?

Eff...The GOP should be shouting REFORM, REFORM, REFORM on everything...Immigration, Obamacare, NSA ...But as long as they instead shout REPEAL and HELL NO to any reform, then the Chisel divides and they are in the minority where they are less useful to all of us...and I do believe the GOP are needed...at least the GOP of old, before the TP extremist RINO hunts drove them from DC or forced them to hide in their public rhetoric.

I think I got Obamacare. The site would never send me a confirmation email. The site STILL wont let me log in after weeks of joining, I just get a red box that says "oops". Then I have to wait on the phone for them to do my stuff manually, waited for 2 1/2 hours, finally someone answered. Then I had to call the insurance marketplace, took a forever wait. So now I have paid for it weeks ago,havent heard a word back from anyone, nothing in the mail, wth. Maybe it will come in handy, but it all seems really ghetto.

reply to post by lotusfoot

it all seems really ghetto.

I never thought of putting it that way, but for many, it seems to fit with their experience at the website.

a reply to: Indigo5

Ever since Karl Rove struck "gold" in the divide and conquer, button pushing strategy with Gay Marriage and other divisive issues at that time that had little to do with the welfare of the country or it's citizens...it has been standard practice. Identify issues that divide, cultural/religious, and hammer the chisel repeatedly.

The GOP is entrenched in the politics of hate and division. Demonizing the poor (now middle class)...the working man...cops, teachers, immigrants et al. Those are their demons to carry.

I may surprise you, since we so often come out on opposite sides for things, but on this? We're 100% in agreement. Now I'll add that the Dems are no better. I don't mean in a general "they're all the same" way, but specifically. I watched a bit of both Fox and MSNBC over the last couple weeks to get a feel for news I'd been missing since I turned off Cable news last Nov/Dec.

What I saw was about what you say. Fox is so blatantly and so obscenely partisan now, it's hard to imagine they used to be a place I really called fair and balanced. It must be more subtle way for regular viewers because by not really having watched in in months?

The shock of "We're Right so We're RIGHT!" as they produce it, is like a slap...and you know I'm a conservative in the Reagan sense. I'm supposed to be who they want...but yeeeack! I've gone back to my No Cable News policy, BTW. Much happier for it. If I wanted indoctrinated, I'd join an alphabet soup agency and get it properly.


The problem was...MSNBC wasn't one pinch better, and CNN kinda player closer to the middle, but still tilting far enough left to just not use as reference. Accuracy isn't something the MSM cares about anymore. That's all I've been left to conclude. It reports things which are easily demonstrated as flat wrong for facts too often these days to think they do care.

Take this thread and Obamacare enrollment. How many sources mention that every prisoner in the Federal system and a good number of the countless jails and state facilities are being screened/signed up too? Are they separated from the total figures? Well...if they even noted a captive audience represents a % of the figure, it would be enough, but I've rarely seen even that much in print, let alone Cable. The subtle ways the news is just newstainment now.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Your are right about Fox...And MSNBC isn't quite as blatantly partisan and full of crap as Fox, but it is not because they aren't trying to be, it's just because they aren't as good at BS as FOX is...For partisan, divide (better demographics for advertising) news stations, Fox is like the guru of BS..MSNBC is working hard to catch up.

CNN tries to play the middle...but HELL...Don Lemon might be the dumbest person on TV, I am always shocked he knows how to read the teleprompter. CNN Is just selling cheap, low quality news hoping to get both the left and the right.

a reply to: Indigo5

www.cbsnews.com...


How is that "On track" thing going?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

www.cbsnews.com...


How is that "On track" thing going?

Just fine? Maybe you should read entire articles, rather than headlines?

From your link:

It's also worth noting that the data collected by the Energy and Commerce Committee represents premiums paid by April 15 -- two weeks after open enrollment had closed.

However, millions of Americans enrolled in the final weeks, and many finished the enrollment process after March 31.

Consequently, many Americans on the new marketplace simply didn't owe any premiums by April 15.

Any "study" headed by Fred Upton...you can bet he is BSing you.