Will Obama Slip Obamacare Mandate Deadline One Month?
The official numbers are in for January, showing that Obamacare signups beat the monthly projection for the first time. This is good news for the White House, as is the new overall signup total of 3.3 million. After a very rocky rollout, the Obamacare website seems to now be back on track. The numbers are good, but they will likely fall short of the overall goal of seven million signed up by the deadline, currently set for the end of March. This will leave the White House with a rather obvious path to make up the difference: slip the individual mandate deadline by one month, to the end of April. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Obama chooses this route, likely in the middle of next month.
The rationale for doing so is clear. Here's an early draft of what Obama will likely say, if he does announce such a change:
"The Affordable Care Act has already allowed millions of Americans to sign up for health insurance, many of them for the first time. When the Congressional Budget Office did their initial projections, they estimated that seven million people would sign up in the new individual marketplaces during the first open enrollment period, from October of last year through the end of March. But, as you all know, for the first two months of that six-month period, the HealthCare.gov website had a few small problems. [pause for laughter] OK, OK, it had more than just a few problems -- it barely worked. Since we fixed it, however, the projections have been pretty accurate for the number of people who are signing up. The problem is, we lost those first two months -- which was a whopping one-third of the total time period. Therefore, to allow everyone a chance to participate, we're moving the deadline for individuals to sign up for health coverage back one month, to the end of April. This will assure that Americans get every possible chance to get insured. We are pretty confident that we can meet the original target of seven million people by the end of April, and I encourage everyone who has not yet signed up to visit their state's marketplace or the HealthCare.gov site -- and to do so as soon as possible."
Obama has already been slipping deadlines in Obamacare for other groups. However, the numbers for individual signups have been good enough (since the site started working) that he won't need to slip this deadline for an entire year, as Republicans tried to force him to do during the government shutdown fight. Over 1.1 million people signed up in January, it was announced today, which beat the C.B.O. projection by over 100,000 people. But the total number signed up overall is roughly one million shy of where the C.B.O. thought it would be at this point. February's numbers will likely be equivalent to January's, and then there will be a large "last minute" surge of procrastinators in March. This likely will mean a total of only around six million signed up. But if you add in another month like January to that total, it reaches the projected seven million.
This is a pretty easy fix, and my guess is that it'll be too tempting for the White House to pass up. They've already essentially slipped this deadline once before, after all. This was due to the strange nature of health insurance, which (unlike, say, car insurance) does not start when you make your first payment. Health insurance only starts on the first of the following month. The law was written stating that you had to have insurance by the end of March. But this meant you would have had to sign up for insurance before March began, meaning the actual deadline was something like the middle of February -- enough time for the payment to be processed and the insurance to kick in. This was quietly changed to "signed up by the end of March" rather than "insured by the end of March," which essentially added a month and a half to the deadline. Since there is a large segment of Americans who procrastinate until the last minute to do things, adding another month will ease the pressure on these latecomers.
Everyone knows that the initial rollout in October and November was a complete disaster, which wasted one-third the amount of time available. President Obama has already taken political hits for the other deadline delays he has announced, and he knows that Republicans are teeing the Obamacare issue up as the centerpiece of their campaigns for the midterm elections. Democrats will have an easier time of things if they can point to seven million people signed up -- just as projected -- during the campaign season.
Of course, Obama doesn't want the numbers to sag in March, so he'll wait until the middle of the month to make this announcement -- say, around Saint Patrick's Day. Now that the White House can be confident that a million people are signing up per month (even without a deadline looming), adding in that extra month to the schedule is going to prove too irresistible to pass up. The math is simple: a total of 3.3 million in January, 4.4 million by the end of February, 5.5 million in March, and then a big wave (equal to December's) to finish up in April and meet the target.
Making this change will give Democrats the opportunity to look beyond the disastrous rollout of the website. By the time people vote in November, that story is going to be over a year old, after all. If Democrats can say "even against all odds, we met the target set for Obamacare signups" that will refocus the debate considerably. They'll be able to point out that Obamacare has been up and running for a whole year, and that the sky still has not fallen in all the many ways Republicans had confidently predicted it would. Democrats will be running on how to improve the law, and Republicans will still be grousing about computer problems that were fixed a year ago. President Obama may take a small political hit for slipping the deadline a month, but he's already taken multiple hits on deadline slips already, so this one won't hurt all that much -- and it won't hurt other Democrats at all.
It's really hard to see much of a downside, which is why I'm boldly making the prediction today: when we all wake up from Paddy's Day hangovers, Obamacare's individual mandate deadline (the date you must be insured by, to avoid paying a penalty on your taxes) will have slipped to the end of April.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
You may be right. But there's no reason to either slip the deadline or miss the target. The deadline is because obtaining coverage is mandatory. Anyone who couldn't obtain coverage while the sites were unresponsive can still do so before the deadline. It isn't like those who couldn't use the site in October will somehow be unable themselves, or cause others to be unable, to obtain coverage by the deadline. Anyone who misses it does so willfully, not because of any website problems. In spite of GOP rhetoric Obama hasn't been adjusting target dates arbitrarily. The six-month sign-up period is arbitrary, not necessary. There's no real reason to adjust dates to "ensure" everyone has six-months to sign-up. Five would still be ample time.
LewDan -
Yeah, but political considerations might trump your logical reasoning. One more month might equal "we met our target" and that is what might just be irresistable to the White House... I'm just saying....
:-)
-CW
It's really hard to see much of a downside, which is why I'm boldly making the prediction today: when we all wake up from Paddy's Day hangovers, Obamacare's individual mandate deadline (the date you must be insured by, to avoid paying a penalty on your taxes) will have slipped to the end of April.
I will make an equally bold prediction..
When we wake up from Paddy Day hangovers, TrainWreckCare will be in the throes of massive problems over payouts to insurance companies over subsidies and coverage.
The pay systems that will link obamacare.com users with their insurance subsidies and payments are STILL not in place...
So, in March, the worry is not going to be whether to extend the individual mandate...
The worry is going to be whether or not obamacare will survive the month.
As I have been saying all along, since it's inception. The numbers do not tell the whole story. More often than not, the numbers are a blatant lie..
Enron?? Bernie Maddoff?? WorldCom??
Any of these ringing any bells???
Ya'all go on and keep commenting on what fine livery Obama is wearing. Go ahead and keep spreading lipstick on the pig... Enjoy the notion that the world is flat and congratulate yerselves on how smart and knowledgeable ya'all are.. :D
But at the end of the day, the earth is a big blue marble, the pig is still a pig and Obama is buck-assed nekkid..
And he who laughs LAST, laughs best.. :D
Michale
I asked before and I'll ask again.
So many Democrats are bailing or running against obamacare or filing OpEds decrying the "incompetence" and the "politicking" of Obama over TrainWreckCare...
What makes ALL those Democrats wrong and ya'all right??
Enquiring minds want to know.. :D
Michale
The official numbers are in for January, showing that Obamacare signups beat the monthly projection for the first time.
That's only because the administration WAY lowered the projections to account for the "train-wrecky-ness" that is obamacare..
If you look at the stats....
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2014/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Feb2014/ib_2014feb_enrollment.pdf
.... you will see that enrollment actually DROPPED by a half million from December..
This is especially ominous because December had 4 weeks in it and January had FIVE weeks in it..
So, Jan had an EXTRA week to gather enrollees and yet did a half million LESS enrollees...
As I said above... Anyone can make the numbers dance to any tune desired..
We saw THAT when the Obama Administration tweaked procedures on the border to make the numbers LOOK like the border was more secure, when it obviously is not..
There is more to TrainWreckCare than just the numbers..
Are people receiving care?
SOME
Are people being denied care?
MANY
Are the plans AFFORDABLE??
NO
Were people able to keep their plans, AS PROMISED?
Not only "NO", but "HELL NO!!"
THAT is the bigger issue..
To sell his plan, Obama and the Democrats blatantly lied over and over and over again..
Since that was necessary to get the abomination passed, how good can it really be??
Ya'all want to talk about obamacare, fine. Let's talk about it..
But let's talk ALL about it.. Not just the rose-tinted sunny side.. If no one is willing to address the dark underbelly, then it's all nothing but political/ideological spin..
Nothing more...
Michale
You need MORE examples of why the numbers don't mean anything??
This is good news for the White House, as is the new overall signup total of 3.3 million.
How many of those 3.3 million have actually PAID any money???
No one knows..
So the 3.3 mil doesn't really mean anything....
Millions can sign up..
How many can actually afford to pay??
Again.. No one knows...
Michale
Mchale,
Really tired of you repeating that GOP misrepresentation about people being able to keep their plans. ACA didn't mandate anyone losing their plan. Insurers chose to discontinue plans. Obama never promised anyone immortality, job security, or indefinite extension of existing contracts. Obama's promise was regarding his actions and the legislative consequences of ACA not the delusional alternate reality embraced by you and the GOP where the President is all powerful. Your talking-point is great spin, but that doesn't make it true. Obama did not break any promises. Obamacare did not take away anyone's insurance plan. Millions "lose" their plans every year. Its how contracts, including insurance contracts, operate. Its how every contract operates. When contracts expire terms are subject to change. While I'm sure you'll keep right on lying I just wanted to go on record stating that your dishonesty is only impressive to you, and those like you, who don't care about the truth. People losing their plans do to third party actions, not the ACA, are not Obama's, or Obamacares, responsibility.
Insurance has worked for hundreds of years for billions of people. It is not a "train wreck." Insurance entails a diverse pool of individuals on the theory that they will not all need to make claims, nor need to make them simultaneously. Therefore the larger and more diverse the pool the more solvent the pool. Insurers profit from service fees for managing such pools. Carving insurers into smaller virtual pools using actuarial statistics, writing contracts so that all reasonably foreseeable claims are excluded, and profiting by retaining premiums thru denying claims, is not insurance. Its betting against the insured that they will not require specific medical care, and no more likely to be any more profitable for the insured than any other gamble against any other casino. All Obamacare does is attempt to regulate insurers by reducing their contractual ability, and financial incentive, to gamble while providing financial incentives to engage in the insurance business instead.
The "train wreck" is insurers, who by avoiding paying claims, increase the cost of healthcare by making insurance an additional overhead rather than a safety net, making healthcare universally unaffordable while bankrupting hundred of thousands individually and the rest of us, through Medicare and medicaid, collectively. The ACA isn't ideal but it at least attempts to deal with our problems. Unlike you and the GOP who prefer to sabotage this nation in futile attempts to delude others into believing your irrational prejudices are justified.
Chris,
What you're overlooking is that those missing the deadline are scofflaws not victims. Democrats may be able to spin an extension as warranted, but as that would not in fact actually be true, they may not be able to successfully spin it. As I said, Obama doesn't just arbitrarily slip dates, in spite of what Republicans claim, nor does he violate the law simply for partisan advantage. I, personally, expect better of the President.
Here's a good article that I think gets the balance about right. HuffPo's on my naughty list these days for shacking up with Facebook, but this is still a really good article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/american-health-care_n_4718923.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
Anyhow, the best reason for me posting the link in 9 is the following quote, which neatly encapsulates the governing dynamics of the end game.
"The thing is, though, it'd be extremely difficult to put the toothpaste back in the tube. As of Jan. 1, millions of people are enrolled in private health insurance through Obamacare, and most are receiving federal subsidies. The soonest Republicans could gain control of the White House is January 2017 -- by which time even more Americans will be getting their health coverage from Obamacare. In the meantime, Obama certainly won't go along with ploys to gut the program. It is called "Obamacare," after all."
CW
I agree with your conclusion that Obama will extend the sign up period one month. Note that "extend" is a much better word than deadline, delay, or slip in the context of talking points.
They have already announced that the site will be down on the final day of sign up (3/31). I think this is a precursor to the one-month sign-up extension.
I have one concern: None of the data that I've seen leads me to believe that more than 75% of the enrollees will pay their first month's premium (meaning they're not enrolled). I also assume that over the course of the year, some will stop paying their premiums. Not sure how this will be handled administratively or from the spin machines (we do know how the GOP/Conservative spin machines will handle these, of course).
It should be noted that the ACA will cost a lot less in the next two years than previously estimated. The number of states not accepting Medicaid funds coupled with any underenrollment from projected numbers (including those who sign up but don't or stop paying their premiums) will lead to spending levels much less than predicted.
Not a great outcome, but interesting data nonetheless.
LD,
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. PERIOD"
-President Obama
You can obfuscate, equivocate and argue what the definition of "is" is until the cows come home.
Obama PROMISED that Americans could keep their plan if they liked their plan.
obamacare forced insurance companies to cancel MILLIONS of American's plans under penalty of law..
That is the text-book definition of a lie...
The ACA isn't ideal but it at least attempts to deal with our problems.
TrainWreckCare makes the insurance problems 10 times worse..
It's the **AFFORDABLE** Care Act..
Insurance costs are skyrocketing as much as 400%...
These are facts..
All you have is spin..
TS,
The soonest Republicans could gain control of the White House is January 2017 -- by which time even more Americans will be getting their health coverage from Obamacare.
This assumes that TrainWreckCare hasn't imploded under it's own incompetence..
I'll ask AGAIN..
HUNDREDS of Democrats are distancing themselves from obamacare and writing OpEds over the incompetence of obamacare and running against obamacare..
What makes ALL THOSE HUNDREDS OF DEMOCRATS wrong and ya'all right???
S2,
I have one concern: None of the data that I've seen leads me to believe that more than 75% of the enrollees will pay their first month's premium (meaning they're not enrolled).
DING, DING, DING, DING
We have a winner!!
It's entirely probable that less than 50% have actually PAID. That means that less than 1.75 million people actually are enrolled in TrainWreckCare...
And, for obamacare to actually survive, there MUST be 7 million actually PAYING for obamacare by next month...
The GOP doesn't have to worry about repealing TrainWreckCare..
It's going to die on it's own (lack of) merits and it will be Obama and the Democrats who will BEG to be able to repeal this LET'S-SCREW-OVER-THE-MIDDLE-CLASS piece of crap.....
Michale
Why does everyone talk about the ACA in terms of the Republican spin? It is not a welfare program. Everyone with insurance benefits, including those whose insurance is through their employers. Portraying the ACA as is if its only about providing coverage to the uninsured, as the HuffPo piece does, is a large part of the problem as far as acceptance. Everyone who has health insurance, most who don't have health insurance, everyone who pays taxes, and everyone who might require medical care, benefits from Obamacare. But you'd never know it listening to the media. Obamacare is about regulating insurers and reducing healthcare costs. Expanding coverage is an additional benefit. We're not a particularly altruistic nation. We worship capitalism. That's why we don't have single-payer. Follow the money. Obamacare wasn't must have legislation because forty million were uninsured. It was must have because Medicare and Medicaid threaten to break the budget. Subsidized insurance wasn't the point, its the carrot. Eliminating retention of excess profits, eliminating lifetime caps, and eliminating exclusions for preconditions, are the stick. And they're all just the insurance side. There are changed affecting healthcare providers as well. It'd really be nice if someone would stop spinning log enough to see the forest instead of the trees. Instead of posts on enrollment with a mention of reduced costs, how about posts on cost reduction initiatives with a mention of enrollment. I know what's most important to the GOP, and the media, but its not what's most important to us.
Someone once asked me "what's in it for the rest of us?" Not a hard question to answer. Then he asked me for cites. Not THAT was a hard question to answer!
Michale,
Neither you nor the test of the GOP are as stupid as you pretend. Obama was speaking of the effects of the ACA, and the ability of people to retain their current plans with regard to the ACA. And that's that's ALL he was promising. And you know it. Obama did not nationalize the insurance industry, and you know it. Obama has NO control over the terms offered by insurers or the policies they choose to offer. And you know it. Obama NEVER promised anyone's policy wouldn't be discontinued because of factors other than the ACA. And you know it. No matter how often you make your false assertions they are still false.
I am really shocked that Mr. Weigant accepted that 3.3 million sign-up number as if it means anything. There us a very good reason the administration continues to cite enrollment figures, but not paid enrollment figures which are all that matter (the deadline for October-December payments has already passed, and what little information is getting out there suggests that at least 30% of enrolees did not pay the premium before the deadline). Then there is the little detail that so few journalists want to mention: Obamacare was supposedly designed to provide health insurance to the uninsured. All available evidence suggests that 70% or more of the enrolees to date were previously insured. That means that less than a million uninsured people (perhaps a lot less) have are included in those totals. Finally, there have been reports that sign-ups have slowed significantly since January.
So my question is: Is Weigant simply spinning the official numbers, or is he writing about a subject he knows nothing about? Either way he should not be taken seriously.
Obama has NO control over the terms offered by insurers or the policies they choose to offer.
Complete and utter BULL CRAP...
Obama had COMPLETE CONTROL over the terms offered by insurers because obamacare **MANDATED** those terms..
If obamacare wasn't implemented, those millions of Americans would NOT have had their plans cancelled..
"Obama had no control" ranks right up there with "I did not have sex with that woman" as the most obvious lie of the century...
You can spin all you want, but EVERY American knows that Obama lied...
Michale
Michale,
Insurance policies are private contracts between private parties. Obamacare does not mandate terms. Obamacare prohibits certain terms, which just happens to be the opposite. In fact, with regard to existing plans there aren't even prohibitions. As long as the terms of the contract are unchanged they may be renewed. People "lost" their policies because their insurers chose not to offer contracts with the existing terms. A routine occurrence that happens millions of times every year, and always has. Just as for the last half century pricing has been almost universally, one of the terms insurers routinely change. Obama had NO control over any such decision. Nothing in Obamacare requires any such decision. Those business decisions were made solely by, and for, the insurers. That's the reality. That's the indisputable truth. Not spin. Not GOP lies. Not your preferred fantasies.
Insurance policies are private contracts between private parties. Obamacare does not mandate terms. Obamacare prohibits certain terms, which just happens to be the opposite.
You realize that your first sentence is contradicted by your second sentence..
If a regulation prohibits something, that's a mandate..
People "lost" their policies because their insurers chose not to offer contracts with the existing terms.
No.. People "lost" their policies because their insurers were FORCED to cancel those policies, because of obamacare..
Nothing in Obamacare requires any such decision.
Complete and utter bullshit..
You have said so yourself that obamacare mandated that those "worthless" and "useless" and "sub standard" policies had to end..
NOW you are saying that obamacare did no such thing..
Which is it??
FACT: Millions of Americans lost their policies because of obamacare..
That is the pure unadulterated fact, untainted by any spin whatsoever..
obamacare mandated that insurers could not offer "sub-standard" policies, even if Americans LIKED those policies and wanted to keep those policies..
Obama *promised* that Americans could KEEP those policies..
He lied...
That is the fact of that particular issue that no amount of spin can erase...
I doubt you'll find anyone here beyond the most ideological enslaved who would agree with you that Obama did not lie...
Michale
LD,
But hay.. Let's play it your way..
Let's say you are correct.. That Obama had absolutely NO CONTROL over the cancelled policies.
Then this begs the question.
WHY did Obama *promise* that, if Americans liked their plan, they could keep their plan?? **PERIOD**
WHY did Obama *promise* that, if Americans liked their doctor, they could KEEP their doctor?? **PERIOD**
He would STILL be a liar because he knew he didn't have any control over whether policies were cancelled or not...
So, logically speaking...
If what I am saying is factual, then Obama is a liar..
If what YOU are saying is factual, then Obama is a cheat and a conman... AND a liar.
Either way, Obama is clearly the bad guy here...
When one looks at the facts, that is the ONLY possible conclusion
Michale
Michale,
So... By your "reasoning" there is no such thing as a private contract between private parties because the United States Constitution imposes "mandates" and therefore dictates terms rendering complete control of all business agreements to the federal government?! What, are you trying to prove that you really are "that stupid?"
I specifically stated, as does Obamacare, that current insurance contracts are NOT subject to any mandates. When the terms change the NEW contracts are subject to the same LIMITED restrictions every other NEW insurance contract must adhere to. Obamacare in no way mandates that current policies be cancelled. Obamacare in no way mandates the terms of insurance policies. Mandating some terms is not mandating the terms. Every human interaction on this planet is subject to government mandates.--We call it "the law." It does not mean government is in total control of every human interaction.
And for Obama to have lied he would have had to make an intentional misstatement with the intent to deceive. Since Obama's statements made perfect sense and accurately communicated factual information to anyone familiar with planet Earth, no lies were uttered.
If it appears he lied to those of you from whatever alternate reality in which out-of-context phrases are either absolutely applicable or lies I have to wonder why YOU lied blaming Obamacare for cancelled policies, when, according to you, the federal government has always absolutely controlled insurance contracts by virtue of Constitutional mandates? Or were you instead lying about federal mandates meaning government establishes the terms of contracts. If statements are lies unless absolute, without regard to little things like... oh, reality... or common sense, your claims are mutually exclusive, and therefore obvious lies.
Obamacare in no way mandates the terms of insurance policies.
I simply cannot address a complete and utter fabrication...
You yourself stated that obamacare required that the "substandard" policies would have to be terminated.
Regardless of ALL that you have spun in this commentary, once fact STILL remains.
Obama PROMISED that if an American liked their policy and their doctor, under obamacare they could KEEP their policy and their doctor.
Now, either it's not under his control and Obama is a cheat.. Or it was under his control and Obama is a liar..
EITHER WAY, Obama MADE the promise and it turned out to be a false promise..
All the rest is just ideological spin...
Obama promised.
And he lied when he promised.
And he KNEW it was a lie when he promised.
These are the only facts that have ANY bearing on the issue..
Michale
And for Obama to have lied he would have had to make an intentional misstatement with the intent to deceive.
Which is EXACTLY what he did..
It's been well documented that Obama KNEW for a fact that up to 4 million Americans WOULD lose their policy and their doctor under obamacare..
He knew this almost a YEAR before obamacare passed Congress...
So, there you have your intent.
Obama lied. Obama KNEW it was a lie.. Obama KNEW that if people knew the truth, that TrainWreckCare would NEVER have passed in Congress..
These are the facts.
And they are undisputed...
Michale
Michale,
You do know that the Olympics are going on, right?
We've just ended another exciting day and you know what that means ... NBC's coverage is about to begin.
Hehehehhehehehehe ...
Too bad they don't give out medals for the coverage because we'd sweep the podium!
Michale [3] -
Didn't you predict the Obamacare website would self-immolate in January?
Well, here we are, it's still up and running, and signing up more people than projected...
From the article:
the sky still has not fallen in all the many ways Republicans had confidently predicted it would.
[4] -
Actually, the rate of people retiring in Congress is about what it is every cycle. And the most recent announcements have come from Republicans who are scared of losing (like the guy in CA, who knows how many Latinos are in his district and just gave up).
How's that special election down in FL going? I hear the Dem is up in the polls...
Heh.
[5] -
OK, now you're just being ridiculous on two levels at once. First, the projected numbers haven't changed. Second, they're from the CBO, not the White House.
As for December, a spike was projected, just like a spike is projected in March. The reason for both is a looming deadline. December's deadline was for people to be covered by the first of the year (people who really wanted insurance badly rushed to get signed up). The second deadline is for the tax hit, and -- just as projected -- will happen in March.
You can argue that the December spike didn't meet the projections (it was something like 1.5 million, the projection was 1.7 or maybe 1.9 m). But January did. And February likely will, too.
LewDan [7] -
What I find particularly amusing is that the GOP decries people losing their insurance, while at the same time fighting to keep states from the Medicaid expansion. So they're upset people are losing insurance (so they say) while fighting to keep people from gaining insurance.
Must be nice to live in Doublethinkland, eh?
LewDan [8] -
You do have a valid point -- Obama would not be slipping for any real reason other than to feed Americans' collective procrastination. Which isn't all that defensible, true. But the politics may trump all of that. We'll see...
TheStig [9, 10] -
I will check it out. Yeah, I think the whole toothpaste-out-of-the-tube thing is going to be apparent even this midterm year. Republicans are running on nothing else -- it's going to be all Obamacare, all the time. But after a year of implementation and people hearing real stories from their friends and relatives, the horror stories (many of them faked) just aren't going to resonate as much as the GOP thinks.
Sure, it'll turn out the rabid base, and sure, midterms can often hinge on base turnout, but longterm it's not the greatest of strategies.
Speak2 [11] -
Aha! Someone who agrees!
Your point about "extend" is an excellent one. Good call.
About the signups over the course of the year, you're probably right. But next year there will be more impetus to sign up (the penalty rises), so there will be a bigger pool of people entering the market, which will counter the loss during the year. That's what the projections say, at any rate. 7 million the first year, something like 15 or 20 million by the second year, 30 million by the third year. That's from memory, those figures are likely wrong, but they show the trend projected, at least.
Speak2 [12] -
Also getting lost in the noise is the fact that health care spending is growing at a slower rate than in the last 50 years. Nobody knows if this trend will hold true for the next few years, but like you said, interesting to watch.
Michale [13] -
Don't hold your breath or anything. Just to play Devil's Advocate, allow me to argue a reality-based version of the Republican position:
Obamacare will fail because it cannot succeed as designed. But it won't collapse for 2 or 3 years, because it'll take that long for the insurers to create the "death spiral." This year, too many sick people and not enough young people will sign up. This will mean insurers will pay out more than expected. At the end of the year (October, when the second open enrollment starts), the insurers will have to hike premiums drastically to cover the projected losses in 2015. This will lead to even fewer signing up (and only the sickest will do so), which continues the death spiral the next year. Because of the "bailout fund," this won't mean total collapse until the third and fourth year, when the insurers prove to the government that the numbers just can't add up.
See? That stays within the bounds of reason, and still argues your case. You're welcome.
LewDan [14] -
Excellent points. The whole "cost cutting" thing got lost in the fight between Dems and Blue Dogs, really. Small programs did survive, but it'll take a few years to see results and even longer to implement nationally. If the Republicans had been rational about this all along, that's what we'd be debating now: what actually WORKS to bring costs down? But I think we're going to have to wait a while for that debate.
Michale [16] -
I find it particularly amusing to hear the GOP weep and wail over people losing their policies, and then supporting a repeal of Obamacare, which would cause millions to lose their policies. Fortunately, most Americans can see through the crocodile tears of Republicans.
Michale [18] -
Obamacare didn't force any insurance company to cancel anything. It mandated a level of insurance to qualify for not paying a fine on your taxes. It didn't make substandard policies illegal. The insurers could have kept on offering them, and people could have kept on buying them -- but then they'd also pay the tax penalty. That's all that happened, sorry. The insurers (rightly) determined that most people wouldn't want a policy that didn't qualify. So they either discontinued these policies or hiked the premiums -- neither of which they were "forced" to do by Obama. It was a business decision, that's all. What Obama did was say "this is the minimum to qualify for a tax break," the rest of it was the insurance companies deciding how to move forward.
-CW
Liz,
I am not a big sports fan.. At most, I'll watch a Jaguars game.. But only if they actually have a shot at winning.
Needless to say, I haven't seen a game in a while.. :D
Although, commenting on an issue that IS within my area of expertise, I have to admit to some considerable surprise that there hasn't been any major security incidents.
Counter Terrorism can sometimes be as much luck as it is skill. When skill is lacking, luck plays an even bigger role.
The Russians have, apparently, been very VERY lucky...
Michale
CW,
"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."
Was that a true and valid statement?
No, it was not.
Did Obama KNOW that it was not a true and valid statement when he made it.
Yes, he did. Each and every time.
That is the beginning and the end of the question, "Did Obama lie?"...
Michale
Jerry Policoff -
Welcome to the site!
Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments and see them appear instantly. Just don't post more than one link per comment, as multilink comments are also automatically held for moderation.
Everyone else -
Because Jerry's comment was held, it kind of throws off the comment numbering I did, above, when answering comments. Sorry for the confusion.
-CW
Why weren't ya'all this "nuanced" and "equivocating" when the entire Left was screaming hysterically about Bush "lying"???
Hmmmmmmmmmmm?????
Michale
LizM -
I see Canuckland is doing pretty darn good in the Olympics... last I checked you were in second place in the medal count.
Congratulations!
Oh, wait, excuse me, that should be:
Congratulations, eh?
Heh.
:-)
-CW
Why weren't ya'all this "nuanced" and "equivocating" when the entire Left was screaming hysterically about Bush "lying"???
Hmmmmmmmmmmm?????
"Oh wait, I know this one. That was on Final Jeopardy last night. Alex said....."
-Will Smith, MEN IN BLACK
:D
Michale
Chris,
Thanks! We're doing OK, medal-wise ... looking forward to what I hope will be the main event ... a CAN/USA Gold Medal hockey game ...
Speaking of which, just watched some of the skating today - LIVE, as it occurred, I might mention ...heh - and one of your figure skaters turned in a stunning performance after falling and slamming into the boards near the beginning of his short program; for many seconds, it didn't look as though he was going to be able to get up let alone continue his skate but continue he did and in remarkable fashion!
It was one of the most amazing recoveries in skating history ...
Jerry,
First off, let me get the formalities out of the way..
"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
Whew...
OK back to it..
There us a very good reason the administration continues to cite enrollment figures, but not paid enrollment figures which are all that matter (the deadline for October-December payments has already passed, and what little information is getting out there suggests that at least 30% of enrolees did not pay the premium before the deadline).
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!!
We have ANOTHER winner!!!
You nailed it..
3.3 Million sounds nice.. But, as I mention and as Speak2 mentions and as you now mention, that's is just the people that said, "Yea, I'll pay for TrainWreckCare"....
I think you are being generous allowing for 70% who actually paid. I think 50% is a lot more likely...
Then there is the little detail that so few journalists want to mention: Obamacare was supposedly designed to provide health insurance to the uninsured. All available evidence suggests that 70% or more of the enrolees to date were previously insured. That means that less than a million uninsured people (perhaps a lot less) have are included in those totals.
And again, the FACTS (Jerry) vs the SPIN (everyone else)...
That needs no further explanation...
Finally, there have been reports that sign-ups have slowed significantly since January.
I know, right!?? I posted that information from the HHS itself and it STILL was pooh-poohed and discarded..
NO ONE likes facts around here if they conflict with the Party line...
THAT much seems evident...
So my question is: Is Weigant simply spinning the official numbers, or is he writing about a subject he knows nothing about? Either way he should not be taken seriously.
I can field this one too..
CW DOES know what he is talking about.. And he should ALWAYS be taken seriously..
I have to concede that he DOES have the best Obama/Bullshit filter of all Weigantians..
Unfortunately, sometimes even HIS filter allows the Obama Is The One bullshit thru...
This is one of those times...
But, it's a minor abberation.. A little hiccup.. 99.95555% of the time, you can take what CW says to the bank...
"You're not exactly catching us at our best."
-Admiral James T Kirk, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home
Again, welcome to Weigantia... It's nice to have someone ELSE who prefers FACTS to SPIN...
Michale
Jerry Policoff,
So my question is: Is Weigant simply spinning the official numbers, or is he writing about a subject he knows nothing about? Either way he should not be taken seriously.
My question is: Did you come here merely to be disrespectful?
My question is: Did you come here merely to be disrespectful?
I am certain he didn't..
That was just a by product.. :D
Disrespectin' aside..
It's refreshing to have someone ELSE here who forgoes spin and just deals in facts.. :D
Michale
This has been all well and good..
But in all the spin, one question has been completely ignored..
WHY did Obama PROMISE each and every American that, under obamacare, if they LIKED their plan and LIKED their Doctor, they could KEEP their plan and KEEP their Doctor??
Especially when he KNEW for a fact that at least FOUR MILLION Americans would NOT be able to keep their plan or keep their Doctor..
WHY??
Can anyone answer that?? Bonus points if you can actually provide FACTS to back up your answer...
Michale
Michale,
I am certain he didn't..That was just a by product.. :D
In any event, I doubt he'll be back. That had the familiar feel of a one-off drive-by "comment". He'll be more comfortable at the Huffington Post.
In any event, I doubt he'll be back.
Bummer.. He brought some sanity and reality back to Weigantia.. :D
He'll be more comfortable at the Huffington Post.
I am nearly certain he would not be allowed to post at HP...
They have even a BIGGER problem with un-approved FACTS that violate the Party orthodoxy...
Step out of line at HP and it's "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!... :D
Michale
I am nearly certain he would not be allowed to post at HP...
They have even a BIGGER problem with un-approved FACTS that violate the Party orthodoxy...
i've stopped posting at HP for a different reason - they now require you to post under your real life name to post there. I understand the reasoning behind the change, and anyone who knows me even casually could have found me there. however, as i am now a teacher in a charter school; one who still holds a number of opinions that go against the charter movement in general, I'm seriously not comfortable with the entire general public being able to google my name and find some ridiculous comment I made off the cuff and out of context.
As to the obamacare question, I think enough people have successfully signed up and found the law helpful that it gets a temporary reprieve. as CW pointed out, some of the numbers are encouraging. even if the truth is somewhat less optimistic thus far, there's enough positive to withhold judgment. you'll recall that i did concede you would have been right if the computer site had continued to be inoperable into january, but it's patched up and moving along now. i know you have constantly balked whenever i suggested that it would probably take a year past roll-out to really crunch the numbers and determine the ACA's effectiveness, but at the moment I'm back to that point of view. As to whether CW or Jerry turns out to be right, the factual data are seriously not even close to being conclusive.
JL
As to whether CW or Jerry turns out to be right, the factual data are seriously not even close to being conclusive.
The problem is, the FACTUAL data is not even being discussed..
It's only the positive spin that's discussed.. As I said above, if the topic is the ACA, then the discussion should encompass ALL of the ACA... Not just the rose-tinted spin..
If no one wants to discuss the bad parts, then it's nothing but propaganda...
Michale
The problem is, the FACTUAL data is not even being discussed..
For example, the number of people signing up is utterly USELESS without knowing how many people PAID..
And the fact that the Obama Administration can't even tell how many people have PAID is ridiculous..
Put it another way..
Let's say you were planning a dinner party and people were going to pay you to give them a wild and fun dinner party..
You have 5000 people sign up for your dinner party, but you don't know how many people actually PAID for it..
How the hell are you supposed to allocate resources, purchase supplies and line up your workers if you don't even know how many people are actually going to show...
That's how it is with TrainWreckCare...
Basically, the Obama Administration has 3.3 million people saying, "Yes, I want health insurance."
And that is ALL that they have...
And ya'all call that a WIN just because of the numbers...
Ignoring ALL the other facts...
It's like people on the Titanic being happy that there are 500 lifeboats available..
Someone's gonna be in for a rude awakening when it's discovered that 2000 lifeboats are going to be needed.
Michale
"BlackWhite is a word that has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink."
-George Orwell, 1984
I think I finally figured things out.... :D
It's all so perfectly clear now...
Michale
For example, the number of people signing up is utterly USELESS without knowing how many people PAID..
And the fact that the Obama Administration can't even tell how many people have PAID is ridiculous..
agree with the first half of that - essentially that's what i just said, the data aren't in yet. the second half is pure supposition, just as much as someone saying all of those people who signed up are absolutely paying their bills and absolutely having their health situation improved, purely as a result of the law. i concede that you might be right; perhaps the numbers thus far are ridiculously inflated and misleading. can you do the same for the possibility that the opposite might be true?
JL
LizM [32] -
I agree, that was one hell of a display of true grit. An Olympic performance, medal or not. The best "what the hell..." comeback I've ever seen, that's for sure...
Jerry Policoff [16] and Michale [various] -
I held off on answering this until others had the chance to chime in.
The numbers are what they are. They're the only facts that exist, at this point, which is why I wrote about them. The New York Times did an article which dug into the numbers (after I wrote this, I should point out) which showed a rate of about 80% paying the premiums. I haven't heard any other numbers, which means [Michale in particular] that the "facts" are that 80% are paying the bill, and that anything else is nothing but "spin."
We'll have plenty of time throughout the summer to examine the final data on the Obamacare signups, that's for sure. It may have figures you'll love to cite, and it may have figures I'll love to cite, but my guess is it'll be a mix of both.
But for now, in the midst of a moving target, we have the numbers we have. Which is what the article is based on -- facts, not spin.
nypoet22 [39] -
Exactly. It's just too soon to tell.
-CW
i concede that you might be right; perhaps the numbers thus far are ridiculously inflated and misleading. can you do the same for the possibility that the opposite might be true?
Abso-frakin'-loutly..
Funny thing though. You are the first (and OnLY) one to concede that I might be right..
AND THAT has been my beef all along..
CW,
Exactly. It's just too soon to tell.
So, like Joshua, you agree that I could be right??
But for now, in the midst of a moving target, we have the numbers we have. Which is what the article is based on -- facts, not spin.
Like I said, numbers don't tell the whole story..
Joshua has 5000 people "enrolled" in his dinner party..
Does that mean there is an awesome fantasmagoric party in the future??
Or a total and unmitigated disaster??
There is not enough information to conclude either way..
But ya'all are assuming fantasmagoric because it suits your Party ideology...
And THAT, my old friend, IS spin... :D
Michale
My biggest beef of this whole comment thread, the beef that prompted the 1984 quote, is the ludicrous idea that Obama did not lie..
If Obama didn't lie, why did he go on national TV and apologize that people were messed up by his lie??
If TrainWreckCare didn't force insurance companies to cancel policies, why did Obama say that the insurance companies could continue to offer so-called "sub standard" policies that were in violation of TrainWreckCare??
The facts are negating ya'alls spin completely..
But ya'all simply can't agree with anything that paints Obama in a bad light..
IE.. "Blackwhite"....
Michale