7 million Americans sign up for the ACA.

[lawrocket 3]

And this is called "success?" More than 8 million people live in NYC. The greater Los Angeles area has 15 million people. The US population has about 318 million people.

2.2% of Americans have signed on. The promise was 30 million newly insured. The preojection was 26 million to remain uninsured.

Are we seeing 12 or 13% of the uninsured being newly insured touted as a success? Or are my numbers wrong?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 897]

My understanding from NPR yesterday is that the numbers are for "creating an account" on the healthcare.gov site.
Not necessarily signing up, nor even making a payment.

I'm not convinced those reported numbers really mean anything at all.

[airdvr 210]

normiss

My understanding from NPR yesterday is that the numbers are for "creating an account" on the healthcare.gov site.
Not necessarily signing up, nor even making a payment.

I'm not convinced those reported numbers really mean anything at all.

Umm...put that 7 million right there with the 'jobs created or saved' numbers from a few years back. This administration is nothing if not enterprising.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 210]

lawrocket

And this is called "success?" More than 8 million people live in NYC. The greater Los Angeles area has 15 million people. The US population has about 318 million people.

2.2% of Americans have signed on. The promise was 30 million newly insured. The preojection was 26 million to remain uninsured.

Are we seeing 12 or 13% of the uninsured being newly insured touted as a success? Or are my numbers wrong?

Yes...you haven't calculated in the numbers who lost their plans when ACA made them obsolete. Net gain maybe 2-3 million at most.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DanG 1]

Quote

And this is called "success?" More than 8 million people live in NYC. The greater Los Angeles area has 15 million people. The US population has about 318 million people.

2.2% of Americans have signed on. The promise was 30 million newly insured. The preojection was 26 million to remain uninsured.

Are we seeing 12 or 13% of the uninsured being newly insured touted as a success? Or are my numbers wrong?

Comparing the number of people who signed up to the total population is nonsensical. The correct number is the number of eligible uninsured, which you state to be 30 million.

But 23% signed up sounds a lot better than 2.2%, so you should stick with 2.2%.

- Dan G

[kallend 2,148]

So you reckon that 7 Million fewer people who are a potential burden on the taxpayer when they get sick is a bad thing?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 62]

It seems that Obamacare is failing right on schedule as intended.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kelpdiver 2]

lawrocket

And this is called "success?" More than 8 million people live in NYC. The greater Los Angeles area has 15 million people. The US population has about 318 million people.

7 million people (caveat being normiss's note on it) is a crap load of people; there's no getting around it.

Compare it to the number of Surface tablets sold by MS, despite a billion dollar ad campaign that was as painful as any election.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

kallend

So you reckon that 7 Million fewer people who are a potential burden on the taxpayer when they get sick is a bad thing?

I suspect it's an occupational hazard for lawyers to make the perfect the enemy of the good. After all, for many of them that's their bread and butter.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

So you reckon that 7 Million fewer people who are a potential burden on the taxpayer when they get sick is a bad thing?

Um - one of the problems that they are having is that the people signing up ARE the burdens. There aren't enough of the young and healthy signing up to cover the costs, and those who are signing up have plenty that aren't paying.

So the proposal is not to pay the care providers for the next three months.

And since the government guaranteed a profit margin for the insurance companies, our tax dollars are supporting and will be supporting them.

More of the same...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jclalor 12]

lawrocket

And this is called "success?" More than 8 million people live in NYC. The greater Los Angeles area has 15 million people. The US population has about 318 million people.

2.2% of Americans have signed on. The promise was 30 million newly insured. The preojection was 26 million to remain uninsured.

Are we seeing 12 or 13% of the uninsured being newly insured touted as a success? Or are my numbers wrong?

Can you cite your source that 30 million were promised to be insured as of today?

[lawrocket 3]

I see. The numbers I got were from a CBO report and projections. It said that of the 55 million non-elderly uninsured, 11 million were expected to be insured this year, leaving 44 million out. Then 37 million for next year. 31 million uninsured for 2015. And then bottoming out at 30 million uninsured from 2016 to 2020.

So what we're seeing is 12-13% of uninsured opening accounts. That's almost double what I had thought.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jclalor 12]

lawrocket

I see. The numbers I got were from a CBO report and projections. It said that of the 55 million non-elderly uninsured, 11 million were expected to be insured this year, leaving 44 million out. Then 37 million for next year. 31 million uninsured for 2015. And then bottoming out at 30 million uninsured from 2016 to 2020.

So what we're seeing is 12-13% of uninsured opening accounts. That's almost double what I had thought.

My understanding is that a side from the 7.1 million from the exchanges, there are 3 million who were able to stay on their parents insurance and many more who were able to join Medicaid. It seems the 11 million projected to have insurance due to the ADA by 4/1/14 is correct.

Not to mention how much higher the numbers would be if all those red States had complied with the law.

[airdvr 210]

jclalor

***I see. The numbers I got were from a CBO report and projections. It said that of the 55 million non-elderly uninsured, 11 million were expected to be insured this year, leaving 44 million out. Then 37 million for next year. 31 million uninsured for 2015. And then bottoming out at 30 million uninsured from 2016 to 2020.

So what we're seeing is 12-13% of uninsured opening accounts. That's almost double what I had thought.

My understanding is that a side from the 7.1 million from the exchanges, there are 3 million who were able to stay on their parents insurance and many more who were able to join Medicaid. It seems the 11 million projected to have insurance due to the ADA by 4/1/14 is correct.

Not to mention how much higher the numbers would be if all those red States had complied with the law.

ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act. This fleecing of the taxpayers is ACA.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[PiLFy 3]

Next year, when those 7 million People experience double digit increases in their premiums, & are forced to cancel their policies. I wonder how the Lie Machine will try to spin that...

[turtlespeed 226]

normiss

My understanding from NPR yesterday is that the numbers are for "creating an account" on the healthcare.gov site.
Not necessarily signing up, nor even making a payment.

I'm not convinced those reported numbers really mean anything at all.

You also have to get these people to actually pay their bills.

What percentage do you think THAT will be?

Yet one step closer to killing the insurance industry, and going to single payer.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Stumpy 284]

OK - so now it's starting to do what it's supposed to, you are making up reasons why it will fail in the future?

Only the right wing can view more people having healthcare as a bad thing.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[PiLFy 3]

Stumpy

OK - so now it's starting to do what it's supposed to, you are making up reasons why it will fail in the future?

Only the right wing can view more people having healthcare as a bad thing.

You view the ACA_CF as functional ?? Seven million People have insurance most of them can barely afford, now. When the rates go vertical? They'll be forced to bail. If they actually try using that insurance, discovering that they STILL owe several thou$and after a simple hospital stay. They'll be forced to leave even sooner. It's failing on its own, just fine. It doesn't need any prodding from the opposition.

[lawrocket 3]

Stumpy

OK - so now it's starting to do what it's supposed to, you are making up reasons why it will fail in the future?

Only the right wing can view more people having healthcare as a bad thing.

Only a lefty would find the objection as an objection to health care. If you have to be told that what you had before is no good and there's something better for you and that the 100% increase in price is the best thing for you, then it isn't the best thing.

The program creates a huge and expensive bureacracy that benefits corporations at the expense of the individual. And eliminates individual choice.

Question: how do you make health care cost less and bring millions more people into it? If you said, "unless you lower the quality, ration access or just decide to pay the providers haypennies on the dollar, costs must go up" then you would have the correct answer.

That's my problem. Costs are increasing even if prices are decreasing for some.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

lawrocket

***OK - so now it's starting to do what it's supposed to, you are making up reasons why it will fail in the future?

Only the right wing can view more people having healthcare as a bad thing.

Only a lefty would find the objection as an objection to health care. If you have to be told that what you had before is no good and there's something better for you and that the 100% increase in price is the best thing for you, then it isn't the best thing.

The program creates a huge and expensive bureacracy that benefits corporations at the expense of the individual. And eliminates individual choice.

Question: how do you make health care cost less and bring millions more people into it? If you said, "unless you lower the quality, ration access or just decide to pay the providers haypennies on the dollar, costs must go up" then you would have the correct answer.

That's my problem. Costs are increasing even if prices are decreasing for some.

and evidently it is only decreasing for the ones that least need the decrease. How liberal of them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

PiLFy

Next year, when those 7 million People experience double digit increases in their premiums, & are forced to cancel their policies. I wonder how the Lie Machine will try to spin that...

double digit increases....ahem....how many years in the last 20 did individual plan subscribers NOT see a double digit increase? That was going on before ObamaCare became a well known phrase.

[turtlespeed 226]

kelpdiver

***Next year, when those 7 million People experience double digit increases in their premiums, & are forced to cancel their policies. I wonder how the Lie Machine will try to spin that...

double digit increases....ahem....how many years in the last 20 did individual plan subscribers NOT see a double digit increase? That was going on before ObamaCare became a well known phrase.

I'm sure you mean a triple digit increase - don't you? That was unprecedented.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

turtlespeed

I'm sure you mean a triple digit increase - don't you? That was unprecedented.

I've read many times increases for 50-80%. Even group plans dealt with double digit increases routinely.

[turtlespeed 226]

kelpdiver

***
I'm sure you mean a triple digit increase - don't you? That was unprecedented.

I've read many times increases for 50-80%. Even group plans dealt with double digit increases routinely.

Millions of people saw an immediate 100 to 300 percent increase.

HOW the F^^^ is that good for any of those people?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

turtlespeed

Millions of people saw an immediate 100 to 300 percent increase.

HOW the F^^^ is that good for any of those people?

There's an underdocumented misfact pulled right out of Fox Studios in NY!