# Uninsured rate drops to lowest number since Obama took office **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 10, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385 "2014-03-10T21:24:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/41 "2014-03-13T11:36:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > WRONG. Obama didn’t take office until the number of uninsured was over 16 million. Thus the thread title – the uninsured rate really has dropped to the lowest number since Obama took office. > > All hail the ACA 🙂 I realize now that this should have been percentage, not millions (as noted by **adaher** , in a frustratingly falsity-free post). But anyway, **Terr** is still wrong, as the rate of uninsured under Obama is the lowest it’s been since he’s been in office. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/42 "2014-03-13T11:38:58Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > So you used to pay “a budget-crushing $140” to see your doctor, and paid nothing for insurance, but now you pay roughly $130 a month to pay $35 to see your doctor? Yes, but there are two of us, see? So double the savings. Plus, of course, cheaper meds. Plus, visits to doc in the box places for minor things used to be $100. Now they are $35. And of course emergency rooms if needed are no longer a crusher. Of course a youth with no pre-existing conditions would find these things unimportant. But I’m not a youth with no pre-existing conditions. I’m one of the undeserving poor you conservatives despise and would rather see dead. Cheers! ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/43 "2014-03-13T12:07:37Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > Really. I give up posh pedicures\* so you can have affordable health care, and you come on this message board and accuse me of being an ignorant liar. > > \*Cheaper place, not as often I don’t have enough information to judge your claim. Was the old policy ACA compliant? Did it cover hospitalization and surgeries? If it was truly good insurance and the premiums were raised and coverage reduced under the ACA, then it’s fair to say you came out at a loss. But if it was junk insurance and had the sole virtue of being cheap, then you’re comparing rotten apples to fresh oranges. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/44 "2014-03-13T12:46:17Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Yes, but there are two of us, see? So double the savings. Well, yeah, but, no, right? I mean, figure $126 a month, over twelve months – you’re paying over $1500 a year now, plus $35 each time you want to see your doctor, and $35 each time your spouse wants to see the doctor. So if you see the doctor four times a year, and she sees the doctor maybe four times a year, that’s $1792? Without insurance, it would’ve cost you – $1120. > [@](#): > > Plus, visits to doc in the box places for minor things used to be $100. Now they are $35. Arbitrarily figure four doc-in-the-box visits a year for you, and four for her – with your insurance, you’re shelling out more than two thousand dollars total; make those visits at $100 a pop without insurance, you’re shelling out less. But if, like me, you go the doc-in-the-box route _less_ often than that, and _don’t_ wind up needing to see your doctor four times a year – well, then, instead of being a mere hundred-and-fifty bucks poorer thanks to the insurance, you’re now three hundred bucks poorer or six hundred bucks poorer or whatever. ::checks math:: In fact, if you visit your doctor twice a year, and she does likewise, and you have a doc-in-the-box visit and so does she, you’d be a cool thousand dollars richer _without_ that insurance than _with_ it. > [@](#): > > Plus, of course, cheaper meds A hundred bucks cheaper? A thousand bucks cheaper? You may well still have had more cash in your pocket after buying the meds without insurance. Of course, you can set me straight with a quick “No, you don’t understand; I see my doctor once a month; my wife sees her doctor once a week; and each of us racks up a double-digit number of doc-in-the-box visits every year.” But it’s entirely possible that, no, with insurance you’re getting exactly what you could’ve gotten without insurance, except you’re paying a little more to get it. > [@](#): > > And of course emergency rooms if needed are no longer a crusher. Well, as you said upthread, you took _“a certain pleasure in the notion that if I DID have to go to an emergency room, my bills would be paid for by others, since I would have to go as an indigent.”_ So was that really on the table? > [@](#): > > Of course a youth with no pre-existing conditions would find these things unimportant. But I’m not a youth with no pre-existing conditions. I’m one of the undeserving poor you conservatives despise and would rather see dead. Cheers! Where the heck did that come from? I don’t recall ever saying anything like that to you in particular, or about despising poor people in general to the point of wanting to see 'em dead. Why is that line in your reply to my copy-and-pasted remarks? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/45 "2014-03-13T13:14:30Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, yeah, but, no, right? > > I mean, figure $126 a month, over twelve months – you’re paying over $1500 a year now, plus $35 each time you want to see your doctor, and $35 each time your spouse wants to see the doctor. So if you see the doctor four times a year, and she sees the doctor maybe four times a year, that’s $1792? > > Without insurance, it would’ve cost you – $1120. We see the doctor more like 12 times a year each, mostly to have our meds monitored. Could we get by with seeing them less often? I’d like that! But the doctors say monthly. Are they feathering their own nests? I don’t know. That would be legitimate grounds for agreement between us. I do think doctors manipulate the system to a certain degree, but it’s hard to know how much. I’d hate to just unilaterally refuse to see the doctor and be WRONG about it … > [@](#): > > Arbitrarily figure four doc-in-the-box visits a year for you, and four for her – with your insurance, you’re shelling out more than two thousand dollars total; make those visits at $100 a pop without insurance, you’re shelling out less. Not when taken in conjunction with the doctor visits. And I do go the doc in the box route less often … some years I don’t go at all. > [@](#): > > In fact, if you visit your doctor twice a year, and she does likewise, and you have a doc-in-the-box visit and so does she, you’d be a cool thousand dollars richer _without_ that insurance than _with_ it. > > A hundred bucks cheaper? A thousand bucks cheaper? You may well still have had more cash in your pocket after buying the meds without insurance. Would LOVE that. Twice a year visits to the doctor would mean I practically didnt need medical care. You’re thinking maybe of those people who are young and healthy? > [@](#): > > Of course, you can set me straight with a quick “No, you don’t understand; I see my doctor once a month; my wife sees her doctor once a week; and each of us racks up a double-digit number of doc-in-the-box visits every year.” But it’s entirely possible that, no, with insurance you’re getting exactly what you could’ve gotten without insurance, except you’re paying a little more to get it. Done and done. > [@](#): > > Well, as you said upthread, you took _“a certain pleasure in the notion that if I DID have to go to an emergency room, my bills would be paid for by others, since I would have to go as an indigent.”_ So was that really on the table? I’d really rather not go to the emergency room as an indigent, the pleasure I would take in stiffing others with the bill is a bitter one. > [@](#): > > Where the heck did that come from? I don’t recall ever saying anything like that to you in particular, or about despising poor people in general to the point of wanting to see 'em dead. Why is that line in your reply to my copy-and-pasted remarks? It was a generic “you.” I’m thinking of the conservative legislators who keep voting to repeal Obamacare without replaciing it with anything. We all know what they’re about. In any event, you seem to have us confused with the young people who don’t NEED medical care. Sucks to be them, just as it sucks to be me in respect to auto insurance (I haven’t had an accident in decades, but I still have to pay those premiums.) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/46 "2014-03-13T14:04:44Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Aaaaaaaaand loving it! Moochers love mooching. No surprise. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/47 "2014-03-13T14:06:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I realize now that this should have been percentage, not millions (as noted by **adaher** , in a frustratingly falsity-free post). But anyway, **Terr** is still wrong, as the rate of uninsured under Obama is the lowest it’s been since he’s been in office. Not according to the graph I gave. Hint: Obama came into office in 1st quarter 2009. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/48 "2014-03-13T14:48:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Not according to the graph I gave. Hint: Obama came into office in 1st quarter 2009. See those sharp points on your graph (which coincidentally is the same source used in the link from my OP)? Those are the 4 quarters of each year. Obama took office in January of 2009. The 1st quarter 2009 point is 16.1%. The 1st quarter 2014 point is 15.9%. 16.1 is bigger than 15.9. Your graph-reading skills need some work. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/49 "2014-03-13T15:45:40Z")
Let me type it slowly so you may understand. Here is the graph: [http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/psuderman/2014\_03/GALLUP-MARCH2013.png?h=476&w=540](http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/psuderman/2014_03/GALLUP-MARCH2013.png?h=476&w=540) You see the line that says Q1 2009? You see where it intersects the green line? Is that point higher or lower than 15.9? But in any case - plus a fraction of a percent or down a fraction of a percent - you mess around with a trillion-dollar industry, create an enormous new law, create an enormous upheaval, scream from rooftops that this will help the uninsured - and what you get is a fraction of a percent improvement - maybe? Yeah, go with it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/50 "2014-03-13T16:24:17Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Let me type it slowly so you may understand. > > Here is the graph: [http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/psuderman/2014\_03/GALLUP-MARCH2013.png?h=476&w=540](http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/psuderman/2014_03/GALLUP-MARCH2013.png?h=476&w=540) > > You see the line that says Q1 2009? You see where it intersects the green line? Is that point higher or lower than 15.9? Ahh, I get it – you just don’t understand how the graph works. Let me help. The intersection with the green line was not when Obama took office. That’s not the first quarter – that’s a mathematical interpolation of the results between Q4 of 2008 and Q1 of 2009. The first measured (through polling) percentage of the uninsured under Obama was Q1 2009, which was 16.1%. The latest result is 15.9%, which is lower. So my OP was absolutely correct with regards to the data in this graph. You’re welcome for this brief lesson in graph interpretation. Let me know if you don’t understand the meaning of the word “interpolation” – I’d be happy to assist on that too. > [@](#): > > But in any case - plus a fraction of a percent or down a fraction of a percent - you mess around with a trillion-dollar industry, create an enormous new law, create an enormous upheaval, scream from rooftops that this will help the uninsured - and what you get is a fraction of a percent improvement - maybe? Yeah, go with it. I’ll certainly go with the trend. If the trend does not continue, you might have a point. We shall see. But I congratulate you for an excellent, **adaher** esque walk-back of your (false) claim. A fine job! ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/51 "2014-03-13T16:32:22Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Ahh, I get it – you just don’t understand how the graph works. Let me help. The intersection with the green line was not when Obama took office. That’s not the first quarter – that’s a mathematical interpolation of the results between Q4 of 2008 and Q1 of 2009. The LINE says Q1 of 2009. The measurement was made somewhere inside Q1 of 2009 - maybe Feb or March, but the line is where Obama took office. So it is wrong to say that it was 16.1 when he took office - it wasn’t. It was somewhere between 15.4 and 16.1, and by interpolation (I hope you know what that means) lower than the current percentage. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/52 "2014-03-13T16:49:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The LINE says Q1 of 2009. The measurement was made somewhere inside Q1 of 2009 - maybe Feb or March, but the line is where Obama took office. So it is wrong to say that it was 16.1 when he took office - it wasn’t. It was somewhere between 15.4 and 16.1, and by interpolation (I hope you know what that means) lower than the current percentage. Interpolations aren’t measurements. There was a measurement (a poll) in Q1 2009, and it was the first measurement of the rate under Obama. There was no Q0 poll – just a poll for the last quarter under Bush, and then a poll for the first quarter under Obama. And Q1 2014 is lower than the first poll under Obama. So if you want to start a thread “an interpolation of the polling results show that the uninsured rate now may or may not be higher now than when Obama took office”, go right ahead – but my threat title is correct, based on the polling results. I still think it’s funny that you found the exact graph _in my OP_ and reposted it without realizing it. Not quite as funny as your wrongness here, but funny nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/53 "2014-03-13T16:51:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Interpolations aren’t measurements. There was a measurement (a poll) in Q1 2009, and it was the first measurement of the rate under Obama. It wasn’t done at the time that he came into office but quite a bit later. Since the previous measurement was quite a bit lower, at the time he came into office the percentage was lower than 16.1 - and probably lower than the latest today. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/54 "2014-03-13T16:53:13Z")
By the way, **Terr** , using your same (and incorrect) interpolation faux-logic, counting the midpoint between Q4 08 and Q1 09 as the point when Obama took office (even though that was not the point when he took office), I could use the current trendline and say that right now, because we’re very close to the beginning of Q2 '14, the actual uninsured rate is closer to 14.7%. So whether I use my correct interpretation of _actual polling values_ or your incorrect faux-mathematical interpretation of interpolations, my OP title is accurate. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/55 "2014-03-13T16:57:09Z")
Eureka! I found Gallup’s [month-by-month](http://www.gallup.com/poll/166982/uninsured-rate-shows-initial-decline-2014.aspx) poll (from Jan 09 to Jan 14)! And guess what?!? It confirms that my statement in the OP is correct (except for one month in the middle of '09), and, more imporantly, _ **Terr** is incorrect._ I’ll repeat. **Terr** is factually incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/56 "2014-03-13T16:59:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > By the way, **Terr** , using your same (and incorrect) interpolation faux-logic, counting the midpoint between Q4 08 and Q1 09 as the point when Obama took office (even though that was not the point when he took office), I could use the current trendline and say that right now, because we’re very close to the beginning of Q2 '14, the actual uninsured rate is closer to 14.7%. Then you don’t know what “interpolation” means. Hint: “inter” means “between”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/57 "2014-03-13T17:00:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Then you don’t know what “interpolation” means. Hint: “inter” means “between”. No, I know what it means, but I take it you don’t know what “midpoint” means. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/58 "2014-03-13T17:11:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, I know what it means, but I take it you don’t know what “midpoint” means. You don’t “interpolate” to a future point. That’s called “extrapolation”. First lesson is free. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/59 "2014-03-13T17:20:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You don’t “interpolate” to a future point. That’s called “extrapolation”. First lesson is free. Not needed – I never used the word “interpolate” to refer to a future point, just the same sort of flawed logic (which I rejected in the post in any case). But now that we’ve both had the opportunity to see Gallup’s month-by-month poll results, we can happily conclude, finally, that the % of uninsured when Obama took office (Jan 2009) was higher than it was measured in Q1 of 2014. Thank you, I’ve heartily enjoyed this exchange. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385/60 "2014-03-13T17:23:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But now that we’ve both had the opportunity to see Gallup’s month-by-month poll results, we can happily conclude, finally, that the % of uninsured when Obama took office (Jan 2009) was higher than it was measured in Q1 of 2014. By 0.1%. Yay. Spend hundreds of billions of dollars, create a great upheaval in one of the biggest industries in the US, greatly increase taxes, cancel policies of millions of people, all for the sake of 0.1% decrease in uninsured. Something to boast about, definitely. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-rate-drops-to-lowest-number-since-obama-took-office/683385.md?page=4)