# Let's take a peek at those enrollment numbers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2013, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011 "2013-11-15T21:14:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/21 "2013-11-18T15:25:40Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’m unclear on which premise you’re questioning: that the poverty line varies, or that eligibility for ACA subsidies is based on the state medicaid line? That the poverty line varies by state for Medicaid. Is it that states can set it above the federal minimum of they wish, but not below? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/22 "2013-11-18T15:35:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That the poverty line varies by state for Medicaid. Is it that states can set it above the federal minimum of they wish, but not below? There is no federal minimum for childless adults. There are some minimums. If you’re a working parent, the lowest cap the state can set is 28% of the FPL. If you’re not working, then the state can–like Alabama–say that even if you have kids, any income more than 10% makes you ineligible. It’s a joke. That’s why Obamacare tried to fix it. But it was ruled unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/23 "2013-11-18T16:33:38Z")
> [@](#): > > But my guess is that the main reason is simple: people didn’t buy because the prices being offered were so high while the quality of the plans was so lousy. That certainly applies to me. My insurance is being extended through 2014, so I don’t need to find anything else right now. But I explored the ACA plans to see what is available. Every single plan available to me costs more than I’m paying now, even the lousiest “bronze” ones. Obviously, I’m not switching this year. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/24 "2013-11-18T16:56:07Z")
Check your sig quote. There is considerable dissent as to its authenticity. “You should not believe everything you see on the internet.” - Eugene V. Debs ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/25 "2013-11-18T17:01:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Check your sig quote. There is considerable dissent as to its authenticity. > > “You should not believe everything you see on the internet.” - Eugene V. Debs There does seem to be disagreement about who said or wrote it first, but it doesn’t appear to be Jefferson. It seems to go back to the 1950s or perhaps the 1920s, depending on source. _Somebody_ said it at some point, and I think it’s a valid sentiment, but it does appear that it wasn’t Jefferson. I’ll delete it from future posts. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/26 "2013-11-19T03:45:22Z")
What does Obamacare mean for expats? I confess I’ve not been paying that much attention to the issue, particularly since I already have plenty of insurance here in Thailand. Is there someplace I’m supposed to register or report that I have coverage? ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/27 "2013-11-19T04:46:32Z")
Here’s a first look at not just the numbers, but also the demographics of the people signing up. > [@](#): > > Most Californians who applied were older people with health problems. > > In Kentucky, nearly 3 of 4 enrollees were older than 35. About 23 percent of enrollees in Washington state were between 18 and 34. > **[Twenty-somethings in Colorado not stampeding to buy health insurance](https://gazette.com/news/twenty-somethings-in-colorado-not-stampeding-to-buy-health-insurance/article_f0a4b8e9-5e9a-500c-b0ed-a01c4ba5e4c3.html)** > > Bobby Schofield is 25 years old and healthy - but a vexing problem for officials running the state's new health insurance marketplace.He last had coverage at the age of 11, The pro-Obamacare people are getting so desperate for young, healthy people to sign up, that they’re making extremely questionable judgment calls, at least here in Colorado. One group has created stupid, demeaning ads. > [@](#): > > An initial glance at the advertisements led Harsha Gangadharbatla, an associate professor of advertising at the University of Colorado at Boulder, to believe it was a joke toward Obamacare created by Republicans. > **[Pro-Obamacare ads targeting millennials stir controversy in Colorado](https://www.denverpost.com/2013/11/12/pro-obamacare-ads-targeting-millennials-stir-controversy-in-colorado/)** > > Pro-Obamacare ads targeting millennials stir controversy in Colorado ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/28 "2013-11-19T05:32:05Z")
There is no special requirement of intelligence to be a progressive, the simple capacity to recognize facts and arrange them in the appropriate order is not ballistic neurosurgery. Devising sophistic rationales for the unjust and indefensible, that requires more creativity. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/29 "2013-11-19T05:53:11Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > What does Obamacare mean for expats? I confess I’ve not been paying that much attention to the issue, particularly since I already have plenty of insurance here in Thailand. Is there someplace I’m supposed to register or report that I have coverage? Americans living abroad are exempt from having compliant coverage assuming you meet the physical presence test (have a bona fide permanent residence abroad **and** physically outside the United States at least 330 days per year.). Such expats are not penalized for failing to have PPACA compliant coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/30 "2013-11-19T05:58:12Z")
Thanks. That definitely describes me. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/31 "2013-11-19T19:40:39Z")
And this just in, from your good friends over at _Daily Kos_: > **[Obamacare enrollments surging, HealthCare.gov working better](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/11/19/1256749/-Obamacare-enrollments-surging-HealthCare-gov-working-better)** > > This should be the day's leading Obamacare news: enrollements across the country are surging, coming in ahead of projections in states across the ... Far too much to encapsulate, you pretty much have to read it, and follow the embedded links for citation. TL:DR Not totally fixed, but much, much better. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/32 "2013-11-19T20:28:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And this just in, from your good friends over at _Daily Kos_: > > [Obamacare enrollments surging, HealthCare.gov working better](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/19/1256749/-Obamacare-enrollments-surging-HealthCare-gov-working-better?detail=hide) > > Far too much to encapsulate, you pretty much have to read it, and follow the embedded links for citation. TL:DR Not totally fixed, but much, much better. It’s still far short of where they want to be and it’s not exactly “surging” except in a very few states, like California. And most (still) of the enrollments are Medicaid. Private overall enrollment is up by about 60,000 from the 11/2 data released by the HHS. (Note that some HHS data is boosted by “in cart” numbers, so we may see a correction at some point regarding those persons.) Also, [better site](http://obamacaresignups.net/). You can watch the data every day through that site based on numbers provided by the states running their own exchanges. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/33 "2013-11-19T20:35:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And this just in, from your good friends over at _Daily Kos_: > > [Obamacare enrollments surging, HealthCare.gov working better](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/19/1256749/-Obamacare-enrollments-surging-HealthCare-gov-working-better?detail=hide) > > Far too much to encapsulate, you pretty much have to read it, and follow the embedded links for citation. TL:DR Not totally fixed, but much, much better. Kos quotes someone as saying “Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates”. But Kentucky’s [goal](http://finance.yahoo.com/news/glance-state-goals-health-plan-194353263.html) was 15,400 in the first month and 220,000 in the entire enrollment period. Kentucky has actually enrolled [8,780](http://migration.kentucky.gov/Newsroom/governor/20131115kynect.htm)people in the first month and a half, so they’d seem to be lagging embarrassingly far behind the estimates rather than outpacing them. Connecticut’s number, [7,572](http://migration.kentucky.gov/Newsroom/governor/20131115kynect.htm), does beat its first month goal. They seem to have achieved that the old-fashioned way: by setting an extremely low goal. Connecticut’s six-month goal of 33,000 enrollments is much lower than the goals for some states half its size. Kos also says “[HealthCare.gov](http://HealthCare.gov) is now working for 90 percent of users who have tried again to sign up.” However, if you click on the link that supposedly backs this up, it tells you something quite different. 90% of those who tried to create an account successfully created an account; no word on whether anything else on the site is working for them. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/34 "2013-11-19T20:38:51Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Connecticut’s six-month goal of 33,000 enrollments is much lower than the goals for some states half its size. But it’s also one of the richest states in the union with one of the lowest percentages of the uninsured, so your assertion that they’re low-balling their estimate is pretty weak. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/35 "2013-11-19T20:48:48Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Kos quotes someone as saying “Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates”. But Kentucky’s [goal](http://finance.yahoo.com/news/glance-state-goals-health-plan-194353263.html) was 15,400 in the first month and 220,000 in the entire enrollment period. Kentucky has actually enrolled [8,780](http://migration.kentucky.gov/Newsroom/governor/20131115kynect.htm)people in the first month and a half, so they’d seem to be lagging embarrassingly far behind the estimates rather than outpacing them. > > Connecticut’s number, [7,572](http://migration.kentucky.gov/Newsroom/governor/20131115kynect.htm), does beat its first month goal. They seem to have achieved that the old-fashioned way: by setting an extremely low goal. Connecticut’s six-month goal of 33,000 enrollments is much lower than the goals for some states half its size. > > Kos also says “[HealthCare.gov](http://HealthCare.gov) is now working for 90 percent of users who have tried again to sign up.” However, if you click on the link that supposedly backs this up, it tells you something quite different. 90% of those who tried to create an account successfully created an account; no word on whether anything else on the site is working for them. What a shock! The Daily Kos fudged the numbers! ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/36 "2013-11-19T22:06:31Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But it’s also one of the richest states in the union with one of the lowest percentages of the uninsured, so your assertion that they’re low-balling their estimate is pretty weak. Upon further research, I see that the Obama administration set the state-by-state goals, not the states themselves. So I was wrong to imply that the state set the low goal. However the fact remains that Connecticut is only “outpacing estimates” because its goal is so small. Other states, even those with their own exchanges, are currently far short of their estimated sign-ups for the first month. (And of course, we’re most of the way through the second month.) ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/37 "2013-11-19T22:14:08Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > However the fact remains that Connecticut is only “outpacing estimates” because its goal is so small. That doesn’t make sense. Let’s say there’s only 10 people that will buy my product in my office building, and there’s 100 people in your building. We each set a goal of 50%. If I sell to 7 people, you wouldn’t say “Richard Parker is only outpacing estimates because his goal is so small.” Yet, that’s exactly what you’ve said here. > [@ITR champion](#): > > Other states, even those with their own exchanges, are currently far short of their estimated sign-ups for the first month. (And of course, we’re most of the way through the second month.) It does look like many states are short of the federal goals for those states. It’s not clear to me that this contradicts the L.A. Times article’s claim that the rates of enrollment in the last weeks have exceeded expectations. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/38 "2013-11-19T22:40:40Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That doesn’t make sense. Let’s say there’s only 10 people that will buy my product in my office building, and there’s 100 people in your building. We each set a goal of 50%. If I sell to 7 people, you wouldn’t say “Richard Parker is only outpacing estimates because his goal is so small.” I might very well say that. It’s a poor analogy, however. Shopping on the insurance exchanges is not limited solely, or even primarily, to those currently uninsured. Anyone can go to the exchanges and shop for insurance and buy it, if they like what they find better than what they currently have. So the fact that Connecticut has few uninsured doesn’t mean that there are few possible customers there. The bottom line is that if all states get the same percentage of customers buying private plans as Connecticut currently has, the system will fall apart. So it’s rather odd that Kos would trumpet Connecticut’s numbers. It rather suggests that supporters of Obamacare may be desperate for good news. > [@](#): > > It does look like many states are short of the federal goals for those states. It’s not clear to me that this contradicts the L.A. Times article’s claim that the rates of enrollment in the last weeks have exceeded expectations. That raises the question: whose expectations? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/39 "2013-11-19T22:47:29Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So the fact that Connecticut has few uninsured doesn’t mean that there are few possible customers there. I disagree, but it doesn’t really change the fact that your assertion that CT gamed the numbers is baseless. You don’t even know what the numbers are based on, having assumed for no particular reason that one of the wealthiest best-insured states in the country would have a goal that considered only its population size. > [@ITR champion](#): > > That raises the question: whose expectations? You tell me. You’re the one saying they’re wrong. So it’s on you to explain what you think they’re saying, and why it’s false. The article says: > [@](#): > > “What we are seeing is incredible momentum,” said Peter Lee, director of Covered California, the nation’s largest state insurance marketplace, which accounted for a third of all enrollments nationally in October. California — which enrolled about 31,000 people in health plans last month — nearly doubled that in the first two weeks of this month. > > Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates, even as states that depend on the federal website lag far behind. In Minnesota, enrollment in the second half of October ran at triple the rate of the first half, officials said. Washington state is also on track to easily exceed its October enrollment figure, officials said. Those two paragraph sure read to me like they’re saying that the pace of enrollments has rapidly increased in recent weeks to levels above the rates predicted. Is that incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011/40 "2013-11-20T14:55:39Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I disagree, but it doesn’t really change the fact that your assertion that CT gamed the numbers is baseless. As I have already admitted, I was wrong to imply that the state of Connecticut set a low goal. Its goal is low because of the its low number of uninsured people, as you said. > [@](#): > > You tell me. You’re the one saying they’re wrong. So it’s on you to explain what you think they’re saying, and why it’s false. The article says: > > Those two paragraph sure read to me like they’re saying that the pace of enrollments has rapidly increased in recent weeks to levels above the rates predicted. Is that incorrect? Kos is claiming that many states beat expectations, without saying what expectations they beat. In the absence of any other, I’m looking at the administration’s clear state-by-state goals, which I’ve already linked to. **Farin** has kindly linked to a site that gives us most up-to-date numbers. Comparing the two, we see that of the five states that Kos listed, four (California, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Washington) have _at present_ not reached their goal _for the month of October_. The first three are not even close to reaching that goal. So it seems that, contra Kos, they are not exceeding expectations. Perhaps there are some alternative expectations that these states have met. If so, Kos should tell us what those are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-take-a-peek-at-those-enrollment-numbers/674011.md?page=3)