Obamacare Enrollment for Uninsured Is Low, Survey Shows

[buck]

Well, at least one of us should be and it doesn't seem to be you

Yes, you can get stuck in the exact details.. 23% or 35%.. Big effin deal. Try dealling with the overall point. It appears that it's likely that a bulk of those that signed up through the exchange were previously insured. Not as certain as originally indicated, but still a strong possibliity. But you don't care. You think you have some huge winning argument with the exact percentage. Good for you. Now let's deal with the bigger point.

 

[buck]

finding new ways to pretend you "forgot" what your OP says doesn't distract from the fact that your OP is untrue, and you know that it is untrue

Still waiting for that link showing people are finding doctors in the ultra narrow network. Oh? none coming? Wonder why that would be.

 

[sangha]

Yes, you can get stuck in the exact details.. 23% or 35%.. Big effin deal.

No, the only honest answer to the question "How many of the people who bought through the exchange were previously uninsured?" is "We don't know", but you won't accept the honest answer because it can't be used to attack ACA

 

[sangha]

Still waiting for that link showing people are finding doctors in the ultra narrow network. Oh? none coming? Wonder why that would be.

Pretending that your dishonest claim is true unless I can prove it to be untrue is just as much a lie as your OP is

 

[buck]

No, the only honest answer to the question "How many of the people who bought through the exchange were previously uninsured?" is "We don't know", but you won't accept the honest answer because it can't be used to attack ACA

The honest answer, based on the surveys is "likely low". The only number showing it's not low, is a government report in which tehy even indicate, basically, "not certain".

 

[buck]

Pretending that your dishonest claim is true unless I can prove it to be untrue is just as much a lie as your OP is

Still "blah blah blah"... and yet no link. shrug.

Allow me to assist:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...lifornia-patients-say-they-cant-see-a-doctor/

But months later, the clinic’s former patients are coming back to the clinic begging for help. “They’re coming back to us now and saying I can’t find a doctor, “said Nguyen.

Nguyen said the newly insured patients checked the physicians’ lists they were provided and were told they weren’t accepting new patients or they did not participate in the plan.

And before you come back with your nonsense claimign "oh, they have a free clinic doctor"... that wasn't the point and you know it. We are paying large tax payer dollars for premium for full coverage when the insurance is, basically, a cat plan.

 

[sangha]

The honest answer, based on the surveys is "likely low". The only number showing it's not low, is a government report in which tehy even indicate, basically, "not certain".

As I predicted, you won't accept the only honest answer which is "We don't know"

 

[buck]

As I predicted, you won't accept the only honest answer which is "We don't know"

We have a hella good idea. First based on the surveys.. then based on the drop in uninsured rate.. Which, when you add in new medicaid benes and the improving job market where people are signing up for insurance through work.. Just doesn't leave a whole lot more for previously uninsured to sign up through thee exchnges. Funny how math works.. no?

 

[buck]

As I predicted, you won't accept the only honest answer which is "We don't know"

Oh, and BTW, if you are the least bit honest and not just a partisan troll, i'm sure you'll reply to Glen Contrarian any minute and claim his post was a lie... Since, despite what he claimed in that post.. According to you.. We just don't know. :roll:

 

[sangha]

We have a hella good idea.

No, you have a hella obvious lie.

 

[sangha]

Oh, and BTW, if you are the least bit honest and not just a partisan troll, i'm sure you'll reply to Glen Contrarian any minute and claim his post was a lie... Since, despite what he claimed in that post.. According to you.. We just don't know. :roll:

Fishing for new distractions won't make the lies you've told in this thread any less dishonest.

BTW, here's what GG said

Both of these are from May 1st. In both cases, even though the numbers look good for the ACA, administration officials warned that it's too early to tell so far.

But your claim that most already had insurance? Even back in March, Politifact found the claim "Mostly False"...and included the interesting info below

Can you tell me which part is a lie or is claiming that he lied another one of your lies?

 

[buck]

No, you have a hella obvious lie.

Yes. I understand that the math doesn't work for your argument, so accusing others of lying is what you have to resort to.

BTW, still waiting for a link showing that people are all finding doctors. Oh that's right... Just another lie from you.

 

[buck]

Can you tell me which part is a lie or is claiming that he lied another one of your lies?

But your claim that most already had insurance? Even back in March, Politifact found the claim "Mostly False"...and included the interesting info below

Politifact brought up a legitimate concern about using the McKinsey study. However, we have at least one other study - Rand - which comes to the same conclusion. Yes, I understand you'll quibble about hte percentages. We also have math, which shows that the number of uninsured through the exchanges were anything but on the higher side. The percentage drop according to Gallup equates to a total number of uninsured gaining insurance. We know many uninsured obtained coverage through a new employer or through Medicaid. That doesn't leave a whole lot left for the exchanges.

 

[sangha]

Yes. I understand that the math doesn't work for your argument, so accusing others of lying is what you have to resort to.

Calling surveys "math" is just another failed attempt at distracting attention from the lie you told in your OP

 

[sangha]

Politifact brought up a legitimate concern about using the McKinsey study. However, we have at least one other study - Rand - which comes to the same conclusion.

GC said that "Politifact found the claim 'Mostly False'"

That is 100% true and is not a lie. Your accusation is just another one of the many lies you have posted in this thread alone.

 

[buck]

Calling surveys "math" is just another failed attempt at distracting attention from the lie you told in your OP

Not at all what was said.

 

[buck]

Calling surveys "math" is just another failed attempt at distracting attention from the lie you told in your OP

Now that I have a little more time, here is the math:

Gallup shows uninsured rate falling from 18% (I'm taking the peak, even though that's not really fair) to 13.4%. Each 1% represents approximately 3 million people. The MOE is 1% - so, just for ease let's change it to 14% (could be a little worse could be a little better, but since I took the peak, it seems fair). That represents 12 million previously uninsured gaining insurance.

From the 12 million we estimate picked up insurance... Some 8 million obtained it through employment - which agrees with what most economists have been saying (not necessarily the number, but that most picked up through employment) I've previously posted links) and can be seen in the Gallup chart showing a steady increase of uninsured from around the start of the "great" recession in 2009 as people lost jobs....

That leaves roughly 4 million previously uninsured picking up insurance through the exchange and Medicaid....

let's say the entire 4 million gained insurance through the exchange.. That is only 50% of the 8.x million that signed up through the exchange.

We know some portion of that 4 million actually gained insurance through Medicaid - whether due to people that have always been eligible but didn't sign up or due to the expansion.

So, it would certainly be less than 50% of those that signed up through the exchange were previously uninsured.

Even if you want to quibble with some of the numbers, you would still end up with low numbers of individuals gaining coverage through the exchanges.

I realize, it's all back of the napkin type stuff.. and I realize I can't say for certain, but we have a hella good idea of the numbers, which if you recall, is what I indicated above.

 

[sangha]

Now that I have a little more time, here is the math:

You shouldn't have bothered. Really

I've already seen how your arguments were used to claim that people wouldn't buy insurance on the exchanges (they did), that young people wouldn't sign up (they did), that the exchanges would collapse (they didn't), and that insurance companies would need bailouts (they don't)

 

[buck]

You shouldn't have bothered. Really

I've already seen how your arguments were used to claim that people wouldn't buy insurance on the exchanges (they did), that young people wouldn't sign up (they did), that the exchanges would collapse (they didn't), and that insurance companies would need bailouts (they don't)

Yes, I know. The math doesn't work out for you.. So, just ignore it.