Uninsured rate drops to lowest number since Obama took office

[Lobohan]

@Raskolnikov

you know, I equate that with being an “F” student, getting straight "D-"s and saying “Look at me, see how improved I am?”

sure, health care was 18% of GDP, sure we were spending wayyyy too much on it in comparison to most other nations so any improvement is good, but when you’re system costs literally 2 or 3 times higher than France, Australia, England, etc you’ve got a loooong way to go before costs are where they should be.

and I have no faith that it ever will. How many dozens, hundreds of meds are out there now that are manufactured for literally pennies and an American is charged 2 or 3 times what other countries people are charged.

a 10 minuet MRI of your neck, US: $1,200, France: $300

basically what Obama has done is mandate that people "buy’’ (oftentimes largely subsidized by the feds) a private for-profit health care policy (not actual health care mind you) , created way more bureaucracy in the process.

seriously, if the insurance industry went along with it something’s not right.

what ever happened to the “47million uninsured” that I heard so much about during the campaign? after the law was signed all I heard him say was that b/c of the law 30million more americans will have health care (really insurance)

did 17 million suddenly get health insurance? what happened to all of them?

and why didn’t the Dems take that one chance they had with a majority in congress and actually pass meaningful health insurance legislation. The GOP successfully appealed to younger peoples sense of greed by talking about having to buy a policy
which they weren’t going to use as much and subsidizing the older folks.

This was the Dems big chance to sing from the mountain that Medicare’s admin rate of 4-6% , ability to keep costs down, and customers who when polled about Medicare are always happy with it, to say “gee, imagine what Medicare could do if we all could buy into it instead of private for profit health insurance”.

but they didn’t , we put a band aid over the problem, we’ve reduced some costs which was inevitable considering the ridiculous mess health care was in in this country and now we’re all pretending it’s all fixed. It’s not.

and he is neither a great president nor policy mastermind nor truly compassionate liberal.

The GOP had a standing filibuster. And the Dems had exactly the number of votes necessary to pass it. Which means, if you thought about it for a second, that what passed must have been something that the most conservative Dem in the Senate would vote for.

So belly-aching about how something better should have been passed, is silly beyond reason. The choices didn’t include single payer. Joe Libermann gave a big fuck you to Medicare for All and the Public Option. So the options were the status quo and what we got. If you preferred the status quo, I’m guessing you don’t have a pre-existing condition.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Evil_Captor

Well, to be honest, the IDEA of Obamacare was to make everyone get health insurance and, you know, spread the risk. Like in any other form of insurance. Are the bad drivers who keep my insurance premiums high (I’m a very good driver) mooching off me? I guess. But no one ever seems to get exercised about that. Perhaps we should! Those damn moochers!

Bad drivers are not mooching, they are necessitating management of risk.

You should be happier paying higher premiums than higher taxes because business.

[adaher]

Problem is, the uninsured haven’t been participating. All ACA has done is cause people to lose their insurance and then seek new insurance on the exchanges.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Problem is, the uninsured haven’t been participating. All ACA has done is cause people to lose their insurance and then seek new insurance on the exchanges.

Actually, the uninsured are participating, and the number of uninsured is dropping.

[adaher]

According to surveys, 1 in 10, which is consistent with the level of drop in the uninsured.

New health insurance marketplaces signing up few uninsured Americans, two...

[Evil_Captor]

@adaher

Problem is, the uninsured haven’t been participating. All ACA has done is cause people to lose their insurance and then seek new insurance on the exchanges.

I for one have been participating. And prior to Obamacare I was uninsured. Great program, I love it!

[adaher]

I’m sure it benefits many people. That was the design, a wealth transfer from some people to other people.

[Smapti]

@adaher

I’m sure it benefits many people. That was the design, a wealth transfer from some people to other people.

Wait, now we’re complaining about “wealth transfers”? I thought the goalpost was over here, not over there.

[adaher]

I can do that, given that your side can’t even make up your minds about what the ACA is supposed to accomplish. So whatever it accomplishes, makes it a success.

[GreenElf]

After being uninsured, I’m now insured through my state’s medicaid. What if I move to another state after this “enrollment period” that I hear of ends?

[Lord_Feldon]

@GreenElf

After being uninsured, I’m now insured through my state’s medicaid. What if I move to another state after this “enrollment period” that I hear of ends?

New applications for Medicaid aren’t subject to enrollment periods. Even if they were, moving to an area where your previous coverage isn’t available is a life event that creates a special enrollment period.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

I can do that, given that your side can’t even make up your minds about what the ACA is supposed to accomplish. So whatever it accomplishes, makes it a success.

You’re projecting – it’s you who counts every new story as evidence of failure. We’re not saying it’s a success – we’re just saying that’s ridiculous to call it a failure this early, and that there are many good signs, especially in the most recent news.

[elfkin477]

@Evil_Captor

Well, to be honest, the IDEA of Obamacare was to make everyone get health insurance and, you know, spread the risk. Like in any other form of insurance. Are the bad drivers who keep my insurance premiums high (I’m a very good driver) mooching off me? I guess. But no one ever seems to get exercised about that. Perhaps we should! Those damn moochers!

Which car insurance company do you have that doesn’t have drastically higher rates for young drivers, old drivers, and bad drivers (all the groups they’re most likely to pay out claims for) compared to people in their mid-20s to around age 50 with good driving records?

[Joools]

The problem with this conversation is that the OP is celebrating a meaningless metric. Who cares if uninsured rates are lower than when Obama took office? There’s no actual policy change addressing healthcare access that corresponds with that event. So why use it as a benchmark?

A meaningful comparison would be, how do uninsured rates compare vs the date of passage of the ACA, the date of the opening of the exchanges, or the peak rate during the Obama administration? Those would show how well the law has performed vs its objectives. And by any of those standards, the metrics that have been presented in this thread show the ACA to be an unambiguous success.

[adaher]

ACA slightly reduced the rate of uninsured, therefore it’s a success? Wow. A trillion dollars to reduce the uninsured from 18% to 15%. Incredible.

[adaher]

BTW, the President has said that enough people have joined the exchanges to make them stable. That’s great news! So it means that we no longer need the individual mandate. Since he already has demonstrated unwillingness to enforce it, why does he still need it on the books?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

ACA slightly reduced the rate of uninsured, therefore it’s a success? Wow. A trillion dollars to reduce the uninsured from 18% to 15%. Incredible.

LOL. Considering the rapid rate of the decline over the last few months, I wonder what you’ll be saying when it gets down to 10%, and then 5%?

And the trillion hasn’t been spent yet, of course. So it’s just false to say “a trillion dollars to reduce the uninsured from 18% to 15%”. Call me when the entire trillion has been spent, and then we’ll see what the rate is.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

LOL. Considering the rapid rate of the decline over the last few months, I wonder what you’ll be saying when it gets down to 10%, and then 5%?

10% would be a great improvement, although it would still fall well short of expectations. 5% would be very good. Massachusetts is 2% I believe. Guess if you really cared about the program you would have put Romney in charge of it.

And the trillion hasn’t been spent yet, of course. So it’s just false to say “a trillion dollars to reduce the uninsured from 18% to 15%”. Call me when the entire trillion has been spent, and then we’ll see what the rate is.

That would be 2020. Don’t worry, I’ll still be here. I’ll even make a prediction you can make fun of me for: 14%.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

10% would be a great improvement, although it would still fall well short of expectations. 5% would be very good. Massachusetts is 2% I believe. Guess if you really cared about the program you would have put Romney in charge of it.

Romney vowed to repeal it, of course.

That would be 2020. Don’t worry, I’ll still be here. I’ll even make a prediction you can make fun of me for: 14%.

Alright – we’ll see. Hopefully, the trend of your history of predictions will continue.

[adaher]

Let me also add though that with a repeal of the individual mandate, the law would be successful, because it would achieve Obama’s original vision of health care reform: affordable health care for all, but no one is forced.

I really don’t see why this would be a problem for liberals. First Congress proved they were unwilling to really enforce the mandate and now the President won’t even go as far as Congress allowed him. Just chuck it. I’m sure at the margins the fact that there’s a mandate written down somewhere that in theory could result in a tax penalty might change some behavior at the margins, but is that extra 1 or 2% covered really worth a hollow law that few respect?