<p>It will be interesting to see what happens with enrollment starting Jan. 1. Has anyone seen numbers for the past two weeks? I wonder if it will pick up even more, or fall way back. I suppose it depends on how well enrollment deadline information has been disseminated. If most everyone who wanted to enroll thought they had to enroll before Jan. 1, then presumably they have already done so. If most people know they have until March 15, then we should see the numbers surge even stronger over the next two months, correct?</p>
<p>20% from 100%, CF, leaves…</p>
<p>… the smart money betting on a preponderance of people taking the money and the affordable coverage. Same thing.</p>
<p>Maybe it will all work out in the end. Not for Pooch, necessarily, but…</p>
<p>The numbers are not good, no matter how the supporters spin it. Of the 500,000 people who selected a plan in Ca probably very few were uninsured. Since 300,000 of the people who had plans cancelled in Ca were eligible for subsidies, that probably means way less than 200,000 of the people who selected plans were uninsured. This is out of a population of 6 million uninsured people in Ca. The numbers are far worse in the other states.</p>
<p>The age demographics were very disappointing. They need 40% of the sign-ups to be in the 18-34 age bracket. Ca and the rest of the country are averaging less than a quarter of the people.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/us/health-care-plans-attracting-more-older-less-healthy-people.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/us/health-care-plans-attracting-more-older-less-healthy-people.html</a></p>
<p>[Health</a> Sign-Ups Skew Older, Raising Fears Over Costs - WSJ.com](<a href=“Health Sign-Ups Skew Older, Raising Fears Over Costs - WSJ”>Health Sign-Ups Skew Older, Raising Fears Over Costs - WSJ)</p>
<p>dstark, I wouldn’t pop the champagne yet. We will see how many of these subsidized people will pay. 80% of the exchange sign-ups are receiving welfare (subsidy is a nice of way saying that you’re getting a handout at the expense of the taxpayer). Some of these people think that govt should pay 100% for their health care. They won’t like making a minimal payment for something that should be free in their minds.</p>
<p>“I think it can be argued that 75 to 85 percent of signups are paying. Because … they kind of are.”</p>
<p>Is this the type of post that doesn’t border on the ridiculous? 
</p>
<p>Texas, only 100,000 people in your state, the second most populous state in the country, selected a plan.</p>
<p>I remember one time when I was bike touring. I was riding NORTH on Coast 1 at Big Sur (the wrong direction, it’s into the wind). At one point, I crested one of the hills, and I remember cramming cookies into my mouth with one hand and strawberries with the other hand. When I’m bike touring I get so hungry.</p>
<p>CF… :).</p>
<p>I feel pretty fit and then I read you ride your bike across the country. :)</p>
<p>…and only 156,000 for New York.</p>
<p>I am extremely surprised at the numbers. 30-50 million uninsured, yet some seem jubilant that 2.2 million have “selected a plan.” Shocking, considering there was supposed to be so much pent-up demand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, why? I don’t see the probability distribution you’re referring to.</p>
<p>Rather than 2.3 million, it’s now up to a bit less than seven million people if you include the new Medicaid signups too. And that doesn’t include the people who signed up for off-exchange insurance that they previously didn’t qualify for.</p>
<p>I would call seven million a lot of pent-up demand, myself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a relative who is very upset that she did not qualify for Medicaid. Even though she qualifies for subsidies, she refused to fill out application for subsidized health care. Because she does not want to pay anything at all. She wants it for free. </p>
<p>So as a result she is going to continue being without insurance. She is so stupid. There. I said it. I wish I could say it to her face though.</p>
<p>"Texas, only 100,000 people in your state, the second most populous state in the country, selected a plan. "</p>
<p>I don’t really care who or how many signed up in Texas.</p>
<p>500,000 less the 300,000 people with cancelled plans who were eligible for subsidies. That leaves 200,000 people. Surely, not everyone of these people didn’t have insurance.</p>
<p>GP, according to YOUR numbers…</p>
<p>You said…</p>
<p>300,000 people already have insurance and are going to pay because they already pay and are subsidized.</p>
<p>Then there are 200,000 more. You said FiFTY percent will pay. </p>
<p>That is another 100,000. </p>
<p>400,000 pay out of 500,000. </p>
<p>That is 80 percent. </p>
<p>I got my numbers from other states that are reporting numbers.
They are kind of real numbers.</p>
<p>But, you are saying what I am saying. Percentage wise…
Do you understand what you say? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am more concerned that the number of the young signing up for insurance is much lower than expected. It does not bode well for the older generation on the individual market.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hard to say if this is all “pent-up demand,” or rather a display of good citizenship by a relatively small percentage of the population. Since it is now a federal law, one would expect more than 7/50 to comply.</p>
<p>Nah, I think far less than 50% will pay. Could be wrong though. I could lose the bet (who knows) and ACA could still be a failure.</p>
<p>Edit: If you win the bet, it is only because 800,000 people in Ca. had the rug pulled out from underneath them.</p>
<p>Turns out that what matters is not young people signing up, but healthy people signing up:</p>
<p>[The</a> Numbers Behind ?Young Invincibles? and the Affordable Care Act | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation](<a href=“http://kff.org/health-reform/perspective/the-numbers-behind-young-invincibles-and-the-affordable-care-act/]The”>The Numbers Behind “Young Invincibles” and the Affordable Care Act | KFF)</p>
<p>And for that, you want to see big numbers of enrollees, including people who sign up for private insurance on the exchanges and people who sign up off the exchanges (they are pooled for risk purposes). Since we don’t know how many have signed up off the exchange, and AFAIK we don’t even have an idea, we can’t yet evaluate that. And the deadline for coverage is March 31, so we can’t yet evaluate even how many people will have signed up on the exchanges by the deadline.</p>
<p>GP, you are going to need to work on your apology. :)</p>
<p>CF wont need to apologize.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In Washington, where we have data on who has paid, about 50% have already paid.</p>
<p>[Washington</a> Health Benefit Exchange :: Jan 7 Enrollment Report](<a href=“http://www.wahbexchange.org/news-resources/press-room/press-releases/jan-7-enrollment-report]Washington”>http://www.wahbexchange.org/news-resources/press-room/press-releases/jan-7-enrollment-report)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If federal law requires people to sign up for insurance by March 31, why would you expect people to sign up 2-3 months ahead of time? </p>
<p>Obviously people who are anxious to have insurance effective January 1 would be in a hurry to sign up – but why would someone who is ambivalent about insurance and has no particular health problems needing treatment even want to sign up before March?</p>
<p>Deleted for being political</p>