ACA/Obamacare: The National Health-Care Spending Level is Politically Bad, Until It's Politically Good. Huh?

"A slew of new reports suggest that health care costs are growing faster – and the White House says that's actually good news.

To them, more medical spending is proof that Obamacare is working: more people are getting health insurance, so they're using more medical care.

Most of the data – both from the federal government and private research firms – shows that health care costs are rising because people are using more medical services. At the same time, health care prices – how much a hospital charges for a knee replacement, for example, or an MRI – are growing slowly." - White House: More health spending means Obamacare is working, vox.com, 04/30/2014

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/30/5668646/the-upside-of-faster-health-care-growth

 

ACA/Obamacare: The Latest CBO Price Tag is $53,192 Per Obamacare Insured.

"The small dent in the total number of uninsured, despite the slight cut in CBO’s projections, still comes at a significant cost to taxpayers. The CBO’s new estimate of Obamacare’s cost is $1.38 trillion through 2024.

When the costs of Medicaid and CHIP’s publicly-funded health coverage is set aside, the total cost of private insurance plans and related spending comes in at $591 billion through 2024. At that
rate, the taxpayer cost of each newly added private insurance enrollee would amount to $45,461.
 
When the CBO’s estimate total net amount of newly insured — whether customers have private coverage, Medicaid or CHIP — are compared to the health care law’s total cost over the next decade, the cost per person is slightly higher at $53,192." - ANALYSIS: Obamacare will cost taxpayers $53,000 per newly insured, dailycaller.com, 04/24/2014

Link to the entire article appears below:


http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/24/analysis-obamacare-will-cost-taxpayers-53000-per-newly-insured/

Reason TV’s Remy: Working 9 to 5 (Obamacare Remix)

Cover Oregon: The $248 Million ACA Web Site is Now Kaput! No way! Way!

 

"PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon, once expected to be a national leader in the federal health care overhaul, on Thursday moved to become the first state to dump its troubled online health exchange and use the federal marketplace instead.

A top Cover Oregon official, Alex Pettit, said fixing the existing system would be too costly at an estimated $78 million, would take too long to implement, and would be too risky. The state's site still isn't fully functional seven months after a failed launch.

Pettit said switching to the federal system would cost $4 million to $6 million."

“Oregon's exchange is seen as the worst of the more than a dozen states that developed their own online health insurance marketplaces. The state is the only one where the general public still can't use the website to sign up for coverage in one sitting — despite an early start building the site and millions of dollars from the federal government.

Several other states experienced major problems with their exchanges, but so far only one has chosen to replace its site. Maryland recently decided to spend $40 million to $50 million to adopt the technology used on Connecticut's successful exchange.

Oregon has received a total of $305 million in federal grants to fund its operations from 2011 through the end of this year. As of March, the state has spent nearly $248 million of that money, Cover Oregon interim executive director Clyde Hamstreet said.

Most of that money went toward the botched portal: $134 million in federal funding was paid to Oracle Corp. for building the exchange, and an additional $7 million was spent on paper processing efforts. Currently, Oregonians must use a time-consuming, hybrid paper-online process to sign up for insurance.

Oregon received a monthlong enrollment extension because of the technology problems.”

“Pettit, Cover Oregon's interim chief information officer, said Thursday that Oregon won't have to return the money, because it's a government grant and the state can decide how to use it. Pettit also said the costs of switching to the federal exchange would be eligible for a 90-10 federal match, meaning the federal government would pay $9 for every $1 Oregon contributes.”

"Because HealthCare.Gov enrolls people only in private health plans, Oregonians found eligible for Medicaid will be redirected to the Oregon Health Authority, a state agency that can enroll them in the Oregon Health Plan, Oregon's version of Medicaid."

“So far, about 240,000 Oregonians have enrolled in coverage through Cover Oregon. More than 69,000 of those enrolled in private health plans, while 171,000 enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan.” - Cover Oregon Health Exchange Website to Shut Down, breitbart.com, 04/24/2014

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/24/Oregon-moves-to-dump-health-exchange-website


Update: Oregon may be the White House’s favorite health exchange, washingtonpost.com, 05/20/2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/20/oregon-may-be-the-white-houses-favorite-health-exchange/


Update II: GOP: Oregon Taxpayers 'Stuck' With Bill From Failed Obamacare Website, newsmax.com, 04/25/2014

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/oregon-obamacare-website-scrapped/2014/04/25/id/567848/?ns_mail_uid=11826812&ns_mail_job=1566662_04262014&promo_code=swacesfq



　

　

Krauthammer on Obamacare: Cornell University Address

‘“What makes Obamacare so unique, and therefore so politically toxic for those who passed it, is that they did it on a straight party line. That has never occurred in American history – something of this social importance, something so sweeping to be done on a purely party-line basis,” Krauthammer said.’

‘That ACA lacked bipartisan support from the start has made it a “terrible liability” for Democrats, Krauthammer said. Liberals will be “tagged as the cause of everything that goes wrong,” he said, whether or not the legislation caused the issue.

He added that he thinks the law oversteps its bounds, and that issues of the uninsured and insufficient plans should have been dealt with “as a discrete issue.” Instead, the ACA has attempted to entirely reform the health care system, leading to what Krauthammer contended are unnecessary additions to the law with “ripple effects” that may negatively affect millions.

“As a result, politically I think it’s quite likely that the Republicans will win the Senate, and I think it gives them a leg up, probably a slight advantage if you had to put down a bet today for the 2016 election,” Krauthammer said.’

He said the reform will be short-lived to due to its overambitious nature: “The likelihood that Obamacare will survive [to be] anything like what it looks like now or what it was intended to [look like] I think is rather small. I do think Obamacare is such a clumsy beast that it will simply expire … and then the country’s going to have a true choice between a single-payer system … [and] a free-market system.”

Krauthammer said ACA supporters used the issue of the uninsured “as an excuse for, or as leverage to, revolutionize everything in the health care system. He said Democrats have used a “combination of hype and partisanship” to make Republicans seem “hard-hearted,” particularly on stem cell research early in the George W. Bush presidency.

“The hype was that stem cell research, or what was known as regenerative medicine, was just a step away from relieving the suffering of millions. And the partisanship was the notion that with Republicans in office, conservatives … [who were] attached to the past and anti-science … were holding this back.”

This notion, Krauthammer noted, fits with caricatures of conservatism, such as “people who love to throw orphans into the snow. Especially in winter.”’ - Krauthammer: Obamacare is a 'clumsy beast', Cornell Chronicle, 04/17/2014

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/04/krauthammer-obamacare-clumsy-beast


　

　


　

Obamacare/ACA Navigators: Navigating the Straits or Sad Straits?

"Government watchdog Judicial Watch announced a lawsuit Tuesday morning against the Department of Health and Human Services after officials failed to comply with a November 8, 2013 Freedom of Information Act Request about Obamacare navigators. The suit was filed on March 27, 2014, but was publicly revealed today.

According to Health and Human Services 50,000 people have been hired as navigators to help Americans enroll in Obamacare through federal or state exchanges. Since navigators were hired, HHS has failed to provide a concrete record of what processes navigators must go through before being qualified to handle sensitive information of potential Obamacare enrollees. Judicial Watch is suing for information about navigator qualifications, background checks and records about the navigator program. From the November FOIA:

-Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to contracts awarded to private entities to provide navigators to assist individuals obtaining health insurance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; and

-Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to federal requirements for the above-mentioned navigators, including but not limited to background checks and qualifications.

“The Obamacare navigator program seems as corrupt as any Chicago patronage operation – and is a danger to the privacy of millions of Americans who are participating in Obamacare,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The use of Obamacare navigators and the Healthcare.gov web site should come with consumer warnings. The Obama administration’s illegal secrecy about these Obamacare navigators should make Americans very nervous." -  Corrupt as Chicago: Judicial Watch Sues HHS for Obamacare Navigator Records, townhall.com, 04/22/2014

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/22/judicial-watch-sues-hhs-for-obamacare-navigator-records-n1827493?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

ACA/Obamacare: New Zeniths In Suspect Data

Math Quest!

　
‘President Barack Obama said Thursday that eight million people had picked health-insurance plans through the Affordable Care Act, a number that significantly outstripped initial projections and emboldened him to step up criticism of Republicans seeking to repeal the law.

The president, in a surprise Thursday afternoon appearance in the White House briefing room, employed markedly more aggressive rhetoric in defending his signature legislative achievement, language that should help bolster Democratic candidates who have been on the defense.

The eight million sign-ups go beyond earlier projections by the Congressional Budget Office that six or seven million people would enroll through the exchanges in 2014. Mr. Obama pointed to the number to declare the law a success and that Republicans should stop trying to overturn it.

"The point is, the repeal debate is and should be over," the president said. "The Affordable Care Act is working and I know the American people don't want us spending the next 2½ years refighting the settled political battles of the last five years."

Some 35% of those who signed up through the federal health-insurance exchange were in the coveted under-35 demographic, Mr. Obama said. The participation of younger, relatively healthy people is needed to balance out the cost of medical claims from older and sicker ones.

The announcement contained few other new details about enrollment. Republicans quickly pointed to missing information—such as the number of people who had actually gained coverage after being uninsured, as opposed to those replacing an existing policy—to suggest the figures could be overblown as a measure of success.’

‘GOP lawmakers continued to emphasize information not contained in the numbers, including how many people have paid their first month's premium, the final step in enrolling for insurance.

"How many of those who have signed up were among the millions who had their plans canceled? How many were already insured but forced to sign up for an Obamacare plan?" said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.). "This law promised to insure the uninsured, let those who liked their insurance keep it, and lower the cost of insurance—let's talk about what the law was supposed to do instead of how many millions of people the president has so far forced into Obamacare."‘

‘The president's announcement didn't include state-by-state information about enrollment, which will be key to determining premiums for 2015 and beyond since each state's insurance market is different and rates are based on the makeup of people who sign up within each.

White House officials said Thursday that 28% of the enrollees in the federally run exchanges serving 36 states are in the 18-34 demographic. Some 7% are children covered by family plans. The administration didn't release demographic information for the 14 states running their own exchanges.

Insurance officials previously said 80% to 85% of enrollees paid the first month's premium, a proportion that would suggest the administration will ultimately hit enrollment targets for the exchanges for 2014 even if some people drop out or have picked more than one plan and are overrepresented in the numbers, especially since some people who have a change in their life circumstances such as a divorce or job loss are still allowed to sign up after March 31.

The figures represent a slight increase in young people compared with the previous five months. The administration said earlier that through Feb. 28, about 4.2 million people were covered by plans picked via the federal and state-run exchanges. Of those, 25% were 18 to 34, and 6% were children covered by family plans.

The mix of younger people buying coverage is considered by health plans to be crucial in determining future insurance prices. Under the law, insurers no longer can charge premiums based on health histories, and are restricted in how much more they can charge older consumers.’ (1)

　


Those Pesky Math Problems

　
‘You can't manage what you don't measure, as the great Peter Drucker used to say, and for the White House that seems to be the goal. Out of the blue, the Census Bureau has changed how it counts health insurance—at the precise moment when ObamaCare is roiling the insurance markets.

Since 1987, the Current Population Survey, or CPS, has collected information on the health-insurance coverage status of Americans. The annual reports are widely cited because their large sample sizes improve accuracy, the data are gathered constantly, and they tease out state-by-state details. But this year the Census revamped the CPS household insurance questions, muddying comparisons between the pre- and post-ObamaCare numbers. The results of the new method will be disclosed this fall.

The FDA would never approve a new drug whose maker completely changed the clinical trial protocol in the middle of the experiment, yet that is what the White House has done. How many people gained or lost insurance under ObamaCare? Did government crowd out individual insurance? What about employer-sponsored insurance? It will be much harder and in some cases impossible to know.

Robert Pear of the New York Times obtained internal Census documents that note that the new CPS system produces lower estimates of the uninsured as an artifact of how the questionnaire is structured. One memo refers to the "coincidental and unfortunate timing" and that, "Ideally, the redesign would have had at least a few years to gather base line and trend data."‘ (2)

　


　
Those Pesky Math Problems Part Deux

　
‘The White House and its media phalanx are claiming the Census Bureau fracas is nothing more than a search for a conspiracy where none exists. Yet revising its health insurance survey design will make it harder to measure ObamaCare's performance over time, and now we've learned that the choice to do so is even worse than we first wrote.

The White House is right that the new questions have been in the works since the Bush Administration, and the Current Population Survey (CPS) revisions are said to produce better estimates of how many people lack coverage. The problem is that resetting the insurance CPS in this year of major insurance disruption means that the old data series can't be compared to the new one going forward. It's a statistical break that prevents researchers from identifying before-and-after trends with precision and validity.

It would have been less disruptive to either delay the update or else to run the old and new CPS in parallel for a few years. As we wrote Wednesday, the second option would preserve the value of three decades of old information, while still producing more accurate statistics going forward.

We've since learned that this hybrid method is precisely what the Census Bureau proposed to do for its data collection about income and poverty in the Annual Social and Economic Supplement, or ASEC. Census announced this change at the same time it proposed the new health insurance questions in the Federal Register in September 2013.

Let the Census explain: "The ASEC 2014 data collection instrument will have a split-design structure, with two separate treatments for the income-related section. . . . Five-eighths (5/8) of the sample will have income questions from the 'traditional' design, while three-eighths (3/8) will have income questions from the 'redesigned' ASEC. This split-design will enable Census Bureau analysts to create a 'cross-walk' when analyzing the effects of the redesigned ASEC on income and poverty estimates."

So why not follow the same procedure for asking about health insurance, erring on the side of more information, not less? The new questions were road-tested in previous surveys in 2010 and 2013, though the CPS is viewed as reliable because it has produced a stable baseline for comparison for so long. Other surveys of insurance, both public and private like Gallup, are more volatile.’ (3)


Checking The Long Form Division

‘Barack Obama wasted little time last week declaring victory as the deadline for enrollment in Affordable Care Act exchanges expired – well, more or less, anyway. The White House celebrated as it announced that 7.1 million consumers had signed up for health insurance through the federal and state exchanges, slightly exceeding their original goals and significantly outpacing expectations after the disastrous rollout of Obamacare last October. “The debate over repealing this law is over,” President Obama told the press on April 1. “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

Last week, that sounded like wishful thinking. Two new studies released this week prove it.

Before we get to these studies, though, we should recognize why we need outside organizations to validate White House claims in the first place. The Department of Health and Human Services still has no way to quantify important data about those consumers signing up for health insurance through state and federal exchanges.

More than six months after the initial rollout of Obamacare -- and four years after the ACA’s passage -- the systems designed by HHS still cannot determine basic and critical information about enrollments such as whether a premium payment has been made. Without a premium payment, a sign-up in the web portal does not mean coverage has been extended.

Furthermore, the systems were not designed to collect important demographic information such as pre-existing coverage, current health status, or even definite age ranges, even though the success of the Obamacare structure depends on getting previously uninsured healthy Americans locked into expensive comprehensive insurance.

Without the “young invincibles” providing new funding for risk pools that now have to cover older and less-healthy consumers under “community pricing” restrictions, premiums will escalate rapidly, forcing more consumers out of the system and triggering the dreaded “death spiral” for insurers.

In order to determine the scope of the celebration, then, we need outside surveys to give us an idea of the size and composition of the actual enrollment population in Obamacare. The first of the independent studies comes from the RAND Corporation, which studied the changes in the health insurance market between September 2013 – just before the rollout of the state exchanges – and the end of the open-enrollment period at the end of last month.

While the White House can claim credit for a net increase of 9.3 million insured and a lowered uninsured rate from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent, the data provides a significantly different picture than that painted by President Obama and the ACA’s advocates.

First, a significant amount of this increase comes from Medicaid enrollments, not private insurance. Almost six million people enrolled in Medicaid, and earlier studies showed that a relatively small number of those came from the expansion built into the ACA; most of these would have been Medicaid-eligible prior to the reform.

Another 8.2 million more people enrolled in employer-provided health care, as 7.1 million left the “other” category and another 1.6 million left the individual insurance markets. Only 3.9 million actually enrolled in insurance plans through state or federal exchanges – not 7.1 million as claimed by Obama. That number falls far short of even the lowered expectations issued by HHS and the White House earlier this year.’ (4)


McMath?

‘Today President Obama announced that as of April 15, 8 million people have enrolled in the insurance exchanges set up by Obamacare. But that’s not all. According to a White House fact sheet:

3 million young adults stayed on their parents plan,
3 million more people had enrolled in Medicaid, with more on the way, and
5 million people enrolled in plans outside the insurance exchanges.

The news was so good that even Republicans should, in the president’s words, admit that the Affordable Care Act is working.

Maybe not. What the administration has not told us is how many of those 19 million people already had coverage and lost it because of the Affordable Care Act. Or how many of them would have been covered by insurance this year and changed plans to get a big subsidy. Or how many of them thought they were going to get a better health plan but found out that their doctor is not in the network. Or how many of them spent more on insurance than they felt they could afford because there were no lower-cost alternatives. Or how many will find out that the taxpayer subsidy they are receiving will turn out to be too high—they might get a raise in a few months or work some overtime and will make a little too much money this year, or it might just be that the government’s computers didn’t get it right—and will have to repay the Treasury hundreds and perhaps thousands of dollars?’ (5)

　


　

Notes:

(1) Obama Says Health-Insurance Enrollees Reach 8 Million, President Criticizes GOP, Saying 'Repeal Debate Is and Should Be Over' - WSJ, 04/17/2014

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304810904579507922881089460?KEYWORDS=OBAMA+HEALTH+CARE+TALK&mg=reno64-wsj


　

　

(2) Cooking the ObamaCare Stats, Suddenly, the Census Bureau changes how it counts insurance - WSJ, 04/16/2014

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303663604579503652766287652?KEYWORDS=obamacare&mg=reno64-wsj


　

(3) None Dare Blame ObamaCare, The Census Bureau's statistical changes are worse than we thought - WSJ, 04/17/2014

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303626804579507820306300440?KEYWORDS=obamacare&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303626804579507820306300440.html%3FKEYWORDS%3Dobamacare&cb=logged0.8406738588705886


　

(4) Two New Studies Raise Red Flags on Obamacare, The Fiscal Times, 04/10/2014

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2014/04/10/Two-Studies-Raise-Red-Flags-Obamacare-s-First-Round


(5) Lots of sign-ups for Obamacare — and almost as many questions, American Enterprise Institute, 04/17/2014

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/lots-of-sign-ups-for-obamacare-and-almost-as-many-questions/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+aei-ideas%2Fposts+%28AEIdeas+Posts%29


　

　


　

The Tax Song!

ACA/Obamacare: More Fall Out From “If you like your plan keep your plan”

“While the federal government was trumpeting the benefits of Obamacare to boost enrollment earlier this year, about 1,800 families in New Jersey were receiving letters telling them their children would be losing their health coverage last week.

The Affordable Care Act — the federal law that mandates everyone have insurance — effectively killed FamilyCare Advantage, a low-cost option for kids in New Jersey created six years ago for parents who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid and other subsidized programs but too little to buy on a policy on their own. The state program was the first of its kind in the nation.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey was the only insurance carrier that agreed to offer the FamilyCare Advantage plan, which covered most medical, dental and vision needs for the relative bargain of $144 a month per child.

But it didn’t offer mental health treatment and several other services Obamacare requires, and that was the fatal flaw, said Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), who sponsored the law creating the program.

Vitale said he tried for several months to broker a deal between Horizon and the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but neither side could agree on how to make it affordable and legal. The program ended last week.

People who tried to buy a plan on the health exchange would have been hit with sticker shock, Vitale said. FamilyCare Advantage had no deductible, compared with the less generous Horizon plan on the exchange that has a minimum deductible of $1,500. And most people would not have qualified for subsidies through the exchange because they earned too much money, he said.

“This is enormously disappointing. New Jersey was always ahead of the nation on health coverage for children and parents,” said Vitale. “It was $5 for doctor visits, $1 for pharmacy and no deductible or cost sharing.”

Vitale noted the irony that the program created to extend universal health care access to all New Jersey’s uninsured children was done in by federal health care reform.” - Obamacare eclipses low-cost NJ health plan for middle-class kids, nj.com, 04/06/2014

Link to the entire article appears below:

　

　
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/obamacare_eclipses_low-cost_nj_health_plan_for_middle-class_kids.html#comments
　


　

Obamacare/Medicaid Enrollment Numbers, the Price and “Backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the U.S. Government.”

Obamacare is based upon insuring an estimated thirty million uninsured through ACA Exchanges and Medicaid. The CBO now projects the price of Obamacare to reach in excess of two trillion dollars. (1) (2) (3)

One has to fully appreciate that the few have decided to introduce a new entitlement and expand an existing entitlement through an entity that is seventeen plus trillion dollars in debt. Stated alternatively, the political power purveyors of a de facto bankrupt entity have introduced a new entitlement and expanded an existing entitlement. Not to worry as the spendthrift, the spendthrift to the tune of seventeen trillion plus dollars in debt, can fund the new and expanded entitlement. How so? (4)

These entitlements, other entitlements and a myriad of other U.S. government programs are “backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.” Makes one feel warm and fuzzy, huh?

Then again, how valuable is such a promise? Maybe one should worry.

Yes, the government has the ability to tax or borrow to make good on its promises. Problem is: one would need to tax at near 100% to make good on all the debt and unfunded entitlements. One can not tax at 100% as private economic activity would end. A 100% tax on zero taxable revenue is zero. Borrowing? One has already borrowed the unfathomable sum of seventeen trillion dollars. (5) (6) (7)

What exactly does “backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government” mean when the phrase is constantly deployed to assure detractors that a proposition, a proposition brought into being by politicos through the mechanism of government, is solvent? One must appreciate that political power purveyors of a de facto bankrupt entity, that can not tax at a rate to make itself solvent, constantly rely on “the full faith and credit” each time one of their many, many, many existing propositions are questioned as to solvency.

When one aggregates all existing propositions and one considers the solvency of the aggregate, exactly how much meaning is conveyed when the supporter of any one of the propositions states: “backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government”?

　

Notes:
　

(1) Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade, The Weekly Standard, 07/11/2012

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-now-estimated-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html


(2) Estimated Cost of ‘Obamacare’ Is Now $2.6 Trillion — Nearly $1.7 Trillion More Than Obama Promised, Yahoo News, 07/11/2012

http://news.yahoo.com/estimated-cost-obamacare-now-2-6-trillion-nearly-042311293.html


(3) New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years, Fox News, 03/14/2012

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/cbo-health-law-estimate-shows-much-higher-spending-beyond-first-10-years/


(4) US Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


　
(5) Full faith and credit, investor words.com

http://www.investorwords.com/2109/full_faith_and_credit.html


(6) full faith and credit - Investment & Finance Definition, yourdictionary.com

http://www.yourdictionary.com/full-faith-and-credit


(7) The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future, Art Laffer, 06/01/2004

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future


　

　

　

　



　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

ACA/Obamacare: A Closer Inspection of the Much Anticipated RAND Study

“Last week, I wrote about an article in the Los Angeles Times, on a then-as-yet unpublished report from the RAND Corporation. The report indicated that only one-third of Obamacare’s purported 7.1 million exchange sign-ups were from the previously uninsured. But Noam Levey, the author of the Times article, didn’t disclose RAND’s actual findings as to the actual number of previously uninsured exchange enrollees. Well, now we know why. RAND published the full report yesterday; it indicates that Obamacare’s exchanges only enrolled 1.4 million previously uninsured individuals.

That 1.4 million is out of a total of 3.9 million exchange enrollees overall. That is to say, a little over a third of enrollees—36 percent—were previously uninsured. RAND’s figures don’t take into account the last few weeks of the Obamacare open enrollment period, and they contain a substantial margin of error, due to the study’s small sample size. (RAND surveyed 2,425 individuals aged 18 to 64; the 1.4 million figure has a margin of error of 700,000, meaning that there is a 95 percent probability that the actual number is between 700,000 and 2.1 million previously uninsured enrollees.)

If you assume that 80 percent of signer-uppers will eventually pay their premiums, the true number of previously uninsured exchange enrollees is likely closer to 2 million. That’s far from what the Congressional Budget Office has projected; the CBO estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the first-year enrollees would come from the previously uninsured population. Instead, it appears to be more like 24 to 36 percent.

Because the RAND survey is quite small—a comparable survey by the U.S. Census Bureau surveys around 250,000 individuals—its results aren’t as reliable. But the RAND authors, Katherine Grace Carman and Christine Eibner, perform a useful service, because they break out how people of varying insurance statuses in 2013 fared in 2014. For example, of the 40.7 million people they consider to have been uninsured in 2013, RAND can break out the fraction of those who gained insurance via the exchanges, via Medicaid, via employer-sponsored insurance, et al.

RAND finds that, overall, 9.3 million more U.S. residents have health insurance in 2014 relative to 2013. That figure has a margin of error of 3.5 million. But that’s not the interesting part. The interesting part is that 8.2 million of that comes from growth in employer-sponsored insurance. Labor force participation has been steadily declining, especially among younger individuals, which would seemingly make this result unlikely. Other surveys from ADP and Aon Hewitt have found that employer-sponsored coverage among the young has been flat to down.” - RAND Comes Clean: Obamacare's Exchanges Enrolled Only 1.4 Million Previously Uninsured Individuals, Forbes, 04/09/2014

　

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/04/09/rand-comes-clean-obamacares-exchanges-enrolled-only-1-4-million-previously-uninsured-individuals/?partner=yahootix


　


　

ACA/Obamacare: Grover Norquist Discusses the Current Director of the Office of Management and Budget Sylvia Burwell, Nominated to Replace Sebelius at HHS

ACA/Obamacare: Kathleen Sebelius Resigns.

“Kathleen Sebelius, who oversaw the bug-ridden rollout of a federal health insurance program that she herself called "miserably frustrating," is resigning as secretary of Health and Human Service, U.S. officials told NBC News on Thursday.

The officials said President Barack Obama on Friday will nominate Sylvia Mathews Burwell, currently director of the White House Office and Management and Budget, to succeed Sebelius, 65, the former governor of Kansas, who was an original member of the Cabinet that Obama appointed when he took office in January 2009.” - Kathleen Sebelius Resigning as Health Secretary, NBC, 04/10/2014

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kathleen-sebelius-resigning-health-secretary-n77341

Government Retirement Made Hard: 28,000 File Cabinets and 230 Feet Below the Earth's Surface. No Way! Way!

Hat Tip: Pretense of Knowledge

Kathleen Sebelius: Four and One Half Minutes of Political Spin …..Then Spin-Brain-Freeze. Oops!

The entire interview can be seen here: http://www.news9.com/category/116601/video-page?autostart=true&clipId=10001484

ACA/Obamacare: No Primetime Spot For the Supposed Seven Million

“WASHINGTON — White House officials sought valuable primetime air for a rare, impromptu Tuesday night address to tout the accomplishment of signing up more than 7 million people under the Affordable Care Act.

But network officials refused to make the kind of accommodation they did previously for the announcement that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, for instance, and Obama was left instead cutting into the much smaller audiences of Ellen and other daytime shows.

Three sources familiar with the request confirmed the White House asked for the primetime slot in their effort both to emphasize a bright moment following the challenging roll out and, more important, to try to reintroduce the country to a law that remains unpopular. One top White House official referred BuzzFeed to another top official for comment on the conversation with networks, but the second official did not respond to a request for comment.

People familiar with the request declined to reveal which network blocked the primetime address, but broadcast networks have traditionally been much more reluctant than cable networks to provide the White House with evening air time.

Instead of the primetime speaking slot the White House wanted, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden lauded the accomplishment in a less formal Rose Garden address that was alternately celebratory and hard-edged.” - Networks Snub Obama On Primetime Health Care Address, buzzfeed.com, 04/03/2014

Link to entire article appears below:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-white-house-tried-to-get-network-primetime-on

ACA/Obamacare: When the Taxing Authority Pays Its Own Imposed Tax. Huh? No Way! Way!

"President Obama's promise that Americans could keep their health insurance if they liked it was the most infamous of the Affordable Care Act's sketchy sales pitches. But many of the law's most damaging aspects are less known, buried in thousands of pages of regulations.

Consider the "fee"—really a hidden sales tax—that all health-insurance companies have been forced to pay since the first of this year on premiums for policies sold to individuals and small and medium-size businesses. The health-insurance tax—known as HIT in business circles—is expected to generate revenues of about $8 billion this year and as much as $14.3 billion by 2018, according to the legislation.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation predict that insurance companies will pass the cost on to customers, as any company subject to such a tax would. In other words, millions of Americans lucky enough to keep their current health insurance under ObamaCare will be paying much higher premiums because of this tax, with the added cost rippling through the economy and stifling job creation.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses projects the health-insurance tax will add an additional $475 per year for the average individually purchased family policy—nearly $5,000 over the course of a decade. Small businesses will take an even bigger hit, with the cost of an employer-provided family policy rising a projected $6,800 in the next decade." - ObamaCare's Hidden Hit On Businesses, WJS, 04/01/2014 (1)


The insurer indeed passes on the tax as part of total premium. The tax is then shown as revenue by the government as it taxes the insurer. The insurer has collected the tax as part of the total premium charged.

What if the government imposes the ACA/Obamacare tax, the insurer passes on the tax, then the government pays its own imposed tax? How so?

Many lower income married couples with children in the household, children that are already on Medicaid or CHIP, qualified for subsidies through ACA/Obamacare that were greater than or equal to the bronze or silver plan premiums. That is to say, the premium paid by these couples is zero dollars [full premium subsidy].

Hence the couple have zero premium payments and the subsidy (taxpayer dollars) pay the entire premium. However, the insurer still passes on the tax within the premium. The government then sends the insurer the premium subsidy which in this case is the total premium as the married couple pay zero dollars.

One ends this exercise as follows:

(1) the tax imposed by the taxing authority becomes part of total premium as the insurer passes through the tax,

(2) the insurer is then sent the subsidy, equivalent to the total premium, by the taxing authority,

(3) which means the tax is paid by the same authority imposing the tax.

If the tax imposed indeed represents $8 billion and as much as $14.3 billion by 2018, those estimates would need down-sized as a taxing authority imposing a tax, a tax that the same taxing authority simultaneously pays, can not be considered revenue. It might be considered foolishness, nitwitery or dupery, but it can not be considered “revenue”.


　
Notes:

(1) ObamaCare's Hidden Hit On Businesses, WJS, 04/01/2014

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304418404579469412924624586?KEYWORDS=obamacare%27s+hidden+hit+on+business&mg=reno64-wsj

ACA/Obamacare: The Deadline Passed for Individual Health Insurance…But Not for Expanded Medicaid

ACA is a scheme predicated on exchange based policies, private exchange based policies and Medicaid. Hence the supposed enrollment numbers appearing in/on various news outlets include Medicaid enrollees.

Open enrollment for exchange based policies ended 03/31/2014 at midnight. Individuals wanting to apply for individual health insurance, for the exception of a life event such as loss of job and health insurance, marriage, child birth, etc., one can no longer purchase an exchange based policy until the next open enrollment. Therefore, if you have the money to purchase coverage or one’s own money along with a taxpayer subsidy to purchase coverage, you have no availability to procure coverage, until the next open enrollment period. Or in the words of the ACA exchange:

　
Coverage options outside Open Enrollment


Open Enrollment for 2014 coverage is over. But you may still have options to get health coverage, including:

Buying a private health plan through the Marketplace — only if you qualify for a special enrollment period
Applying for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — you can do this any time, all year.(1)
　
However, if you are applying for coverage under the expanded Medicaid option available in roughly half of the states, no such deadline exists:

　

Medicaid and CHIP. Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are joint state and federal programs that provide coverage to millions of Americans with limited incomes and some people with disabilities.

There is no limited enrollment period for Medicaid and CHIP. You and your family can enroll in Medicaid and CHIP any time during the year if you qualify.
Whether you qualify depends on what state you live in, your household size and income, or other factors including pregnancy, family situation, and disability.
Your children could qualify for coverage through CHIP even if you don’t qualify for Medicaid.(2)


Notes:

(1) and (2) https://www.healthcare.gov/how-can-i-get-coverage-outside-of-open-enrollment/