Is the Affordable Care Act Working?

[Cow Poke]

Well, for starters, imagine interviewing 7 billion human beings in a few days, each interview to be rather thorough.

Yeah? Then what?

[Jedidiah]

Perhaps you say no because you realize that predicting somewhat in detail the world as it might be if a particular government decision was made for the laissez faire alternative instead of . . . [waving hands] whatever else, like Obamacare, is practically impossible. Why practically impossible? Well, for starters, imagine interviewing 7 billion human beings in a few days, each interview to be rather thorough.

I said no because there is no point in trying to gaze crystal. If things went back only to what they were before Obama took office that would be an immense improvement. Laissez faire could not do worse than what Obamacare has done - not only to the medical situation, but to the entire nation.

[Psychic Missile]

I am going to guess why you don't understand. Let me ask: what do you think the world would be like if instead Congress did not pass the ACA and its backers gave up totally?

A lot of little things, but the main difference would be less people insured. Because of that, some people might have worse health or even die, either between then and now or in the future as a result of nonexistent or delayed medical care.

[Cow Poke]

A lot of little things, but the main difference would be less people insured. Because of that, some people might have worse health or even die, either between then and now or in the future as a result of nonexistent or delayed medical care.

Got anything to support that other than your own bias?

[Psychic Missile]

Got anything to support that other than your own bias?

The increased number of insured people is widely published and available. The latter part of my reply is syllogistic in origin.

[Cow Poke]

The increased number of insured people is widely published and available. The latter part of my reply is syllogistic in origin.

"Widely published and available" doesn't mean squat. Here's a "published and available" source...



On the "pro-Obamacare" side, I see anything ranging from 5 million to 12 million.

AND, what good is "newly insured" if they can't afford the astronomical deductibles when they actually have to USE the insurance?

[Psychic Missile]

"Widely published and available" doesn't mean squat. Here's a "published and available" source...

Source: Forbes

One of the principal flaws in the coverage of Obamacare’s exchange enrollment numbers to date has been that the press has not made distinctions between those who have “signed up” for Obamacare-based plans, and those who have actually paid for those plans and thereby achieved enrollment in health insurance. A new survey from McKinsey indicates that a large majority of people signing up are now paying for their coverage. This is progress for the health law. But the survey still indicates that three-fourths of enrollees were previously insured.

Two months ago, I wrote about a prior McKinsey survey that found that the vast majority of people signing up for individual-market coverage in 2014 were previously insured, and that of the minority who had been previously uninsured, only 53 percent had paid their first month’s premium.

© Copyright Original Source

On the "pro-Obamacare" side, I see anything ranging from 5 million to 12 million.

AND, what good is "newly insured" if they can't afford the astronomical deductibles when they actually have to USE the insurance?

We can go with the lowest estimates. My conclusion doesn't change. The result is still more people being insured.

[Cow Poke]

We can go with the lowest estimates. My conclusion doesn't change. The result is still more people being insured.

I have more to say, but my wife is forcing me to test her freshly baked fudge brownies, so I'll have to address this later.

[Psychic Missile]

I have more to say, but my wife is forcing me to test her freshly baked fudge brownies, so I'll have to address this later.

No problem. Enjoy!

[Sam]

"Widely published and available" doesn't mean squat. Here's a "published and available" source...

Source: Forbes

One of the principal flaws in the coverage of Obamacare’s exchange enrollment numbers to date has been that the press has not made distinctions between those who have “signed up” for Obamacare-based plans, and those who have actually paid for those plans and thereby achieved enrollment in health insurance. A new survey from McKinsey indicates that a large majority of people signing up are now paying for their coverage. This is progress for the health law. But the survey still indicates that three-fourths of enrollees were previously insured.

Two months ago, I wrote about a prior McKinsey survey that found that the vast majority of people signing up for individual-market coverage in 2014 were previously insured, and that of the minority who had been previously uninsured, only 53 percent had paid their first month’s premium.

© Copyright Original Source

On the "pro-Obamacare" side, I see anything ranging from 5 million to 12 million.

AND, what good is "newly insured" if they can't afford the astronomical deductibles when they actually have to USE the insurance?

Kaiser did a detailed survey of the non-group market a couple months after Avik Roy's article, finding that ~60% of enrollees on the exchanges were previously uninsured:

Source: Survey of Non-Group Health Insurance Enrollees. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2014.06.19

The survey finds that roughly two-thirds of those with non-group coverage are now in ACA-compliant plans, while three in ten have coverage they purchased before the ACA rules went into effect (referred to as “non-compliant plans” throughout this report). About half of all non-group enrollees now have coverage purchased from a Health Insurance Exchange, and nearly six in ten (57 percent) of those with Exchange coverage were uninsured prior to purchasing their current plan. Most of this previously uninsured group reports having gone without coverage for two years or more, and for many the ACA was a motivator in seeking coverage; seven in ten of those who were uninsured prior to purchasing a Marketplace plan say they decided to buy insurance because of the law, while just over a quarter say they would have gotten it anyway.

© Copyright Original Source

High-deductible plans are necessary to cut the costs of comprehensive coverage: a family can much better afford a $2500-$3500 deductible than they can the cost of a hospital visit without insurance (a visit to the ICU/PICU/NICU can run you ~$3000 per day). That said, I'd personally be all for higher subsidies so people could choose a lower-deductible plan. Absent that, what's your proposal for insuring a similar or higher number of people at the same or less cost?

[Truthseeker]

Yeah? Then what?

Have you no idea how expensive such an interview program would be? Cannot you imagine how ginormous a burden that it would impose on the world's economy? Practically impossible, I say. But how else are we to know how successful a particular proposed government policy initiative would be? Note that to know how successful, we need to be able to 1) imagine the world as it would be with the initiative enacted and started, 2) imagine the world without, and then 3) compare in detail these two imagined worlds. That's not all yet, but given the sheer difficulty of successfully forecasting economic evolution . . . really impossible . . . You've probably seen admonishments by many people that they know of no one who has successfully called the top or the bottom of financial markets consistently.

[Cow Poke]

Have you no idea how expensive such an interview program would be?

It's so GOOFY I wouldn't even hazard a guess! Do you know how incredibly expensive it would be to buy a brain for every liberal in the world?

[Truthseeker]

I said no because there is no point in trying to gaze crystal. If things went back only to what they were before Obama took office that would be an immense improvement. Laissez faire could not do worse than what Obamacare has done - not only to the medical situation, but to the entire nation.

How do you know the difference between the status quo ante world (Obamacare is rejected in toto and its supporters quit for good) and what we have now would be "immense" (status quo = good; with Obamacare = bad)? Please explain in some detail why you think so.

[Truthseeker]

I said no because there is no point in trying to gaze crystal.

That is correct at least insofar as no government can intelligently plan to better the world beyond the laissez faire situation. Governments can guess, and I suppose one or another government will guess correctly now and then. But consider how many guesses must be made with 7 billion human beings. No, generally governments will guess wrong.

[Truthseeker]

A very important group thinks it can't afford Obamacare. Guess what?



1 in 4 doctors http://thecrux.com/stunning-report-o...ing-obamacare/