Health Care Reform Part III: The Implementation.

http://www.click2houston.com/lifest...rm/boehner-rips-latest-aca-extension/25175716

"The law says that enrollment stops at the end of March. That's what the law says. I've got to live by the law, you've got to live by the law, the American people have got to live by the law and guess what? The president needs to live by the law as well."

Well, he made it to six. I thought he was going to count up to 51.

 

I wonder what Boehner thinks about the states who are offering extensions:

http://resources.coveroregon.com/new-deadline-QA.html

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...ants-to-get-extra-time-to-finish-applications

http://www.cdphp.com/Health-Care-Reform/hcr-blog

https://www.mnsure.org/news-room/news/news-detail.jsp?id=486-121326

http://www.nytimes.com/news/afforda...p=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/mar/20/nevada-health-exchange-approves-special-enrollment/

http://www.californiahealthline.org...changes-plan-to-extend-open-enrollment-period

VT and MD, too, I think. Maybe others, as well.

I'm not claiming this is good or bad. Only pointing out that this isn't exactly limited to the federal exchanges.

 

Your scoreboard is on fire. Your argument is irrelevant.

 

McCullers is gone, so I guess it's time to tone down my avatar (which I'm sure was pivotal in Precourt's decision to dismiss him). Still can't watch the games on TV, though. I do, however, have health insurance.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/...-deadline-takes-health-care-from-my-children/

 

It helps to live in Florida. Until next year, no games are blacked out. Ever.

 

You'd have to have approx 21 children to have an fpv of $94,000:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

 

As with many anti-ACA talking heads, she is conflating the subsidy for insurance plans purchased via the exchanges with the expansion of Medicaid.. It is generally intentional, mind you, because it is much easier to say "We shouldn't be using tax money to pay for a family making $94,000 a year to have insurance" than it is to say "We shouldn't be using tax money to pay for a family making $20,000 (or less) a year to have insurance."

 

Yeh, I realize what she is trying to do. That's why people like this need to be called out each and every time they try to pull such stunts. Unfortunately, many take this kind of deliberately obfuscated argument at face value.

 

On other news, the ACA just hit 6 million enrollments...

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/27/3420001/breaking-obamacare-enrollment-tops-six-million/

Go team Brummie!

 

More White House propaganda!

 

Falc repped this.


lol.

 

Astonishing! It's like people were procrastinating...

ACA enrollment numbers by month via CMS:
Oct: +106K
Nov: +259K
Dec: +1.8M
Jan: +1.15M
Feb: +942K
As of March 27: +1.8M

— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) March 27, 2014

 

Hey Secretary Sebelius, is there any chance you'll release the stats on the number that have actually paid their premium? That were previously uninsured? That are young invincibles? That'd make the 6 million figure somewhat useful.

 

Thank you for that pic! It has to be the perfect metaphor for this 6 million enrollment figure. Without demographic details it is meaningless and unfocused. So how many have paid (est. 80%). How many were previously uninsured (est. 30%). How many are young and healthy (est. 25%).

I'm sure if the #'s were rosier the admin would have shared them with us.

 

I've told you and Falc, wait until mid-April.

 

Agreed. Sort of.

There will be a thousand ways to slice and dice the ACA numbers, once they're fully known. So, even then, each side will claim victory, regardless of whether the final enrollment numbers exceed predicted levels or not. As I said before, the myriad stats associated with the ACA won't really matter to individuals predisposed to a particular position based on a political or ideological perspective.

I do think, however, that one stat will be hard to avoid: the percentage of people without health insurance in this country. Hard to avoid because it's a simple number, will be easy for candidates to employ. I don't mean that fully understanding what the stat means is simple but, rather, that if the number is going down, ACA supporters will be able to use this one measuring stick as a a pretty effective tool to bludgeon critics of the law. If it goes up, nice sounding enrollment numbers for the ACA will be a tough sell for Dems when the right can toss out a stat that implies the law has done nothing to affect positive change in the overall number of insured.

Now, as Stanger mentioned a few days ago, this remains a game; that is, neither the Obama Administration nor the ACA's critics have won this battle (here I disagree with you Brummie). But, trends certainly favor the law's supporters: The enrollment numbers are looking much, much better than could have been envisioned back in late October; that uninsured percentage has dropped since the open enrollment period commenced. It's still higher than it was in 2008, of course. And my guess is that it'll be a while before the dust settles and we have a 'final' post-rollout percentage to debate. But if it does drop below 15%, it'll be a nice stat for the Dems to use to validate their support for this law.

 

Pretty sure he or some others have been banging on those significant qualifiers for a while now. I know it probably sends a tingle up your leg to use such a clever picture, but I don't see where the goalpost moving is.

 

Interesting that the number is almost exactly where it was at the last inflection point in late 2012.

 

You know why I'm confident we've already won? Six million people with health insurance are going to talk about it over the next four months. The media will cover the successes and failures, follies and foibles, and people will start enrolling again in October. New people will enroll, and over the next few years (remember, this isn't a one-year law) more and more individuals will get insurance.

What you've got to believe is that people will hear all the good news about insured individuals getting health care and decide they would rather pay the penalty, year in and year out.

 

Is a 3 year law, until the Reps win the Senate, House and white house.

 

I hope we'll get state by state figures for coverage. That will then illuminate any differences between those states that accepted the Medicaid expansion and those that refused it (and went out of their way to try to make the ACA fail).

 

You do understand that Medicaid is a temporary measure. States have those under that coverage reapply at certain intervals. Comparing who receives Medicaid and who pays for insurance is apple and oranges.