<p>GP, I concede that if 625,000 Californians have signed up, and 75% of those have paid, that makes 468,750. Which is less than 500,000. So we haven’t won. Yet.</p>
<p>But I’m already planning my end zone dance. You are looking brown and crispy around the edges, because you’re toast. The next update of numbers will confirm our victory, with a couple of months to spare.</p>
<p>I’m so not saying anything about unskewing.</p>
<p>Those numbers are from the 15th. </p>
<p>Today is the 21st.</p>
<p>625,000 + 50,000 (about 8300 a day) for 6 days = 675,000 times 75 percent = 506250.</p>
<p>Lights out.</p>
<p>dstark, you know we have won. And I know we have won. But we need to wait for the officials to certify our victory.</p>
<p>CF :)</p>
<p>I was going to tape an envelope to the underside of a park bench in Golden Gate Park near the Conservatory of Flowers.</p>
<p>I guess it is too late. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I am reading the numbers/articles correctly, Lee is saying that “indications” are that 75% of 500K have paid. So for the sake of accuracy, that is 375,000 who have paid thus far.</p>
<p>No problem, Bay. We’ll wait for the refs to certify our victory.</p>
<p>"Only 11% of consumers who bought new coverage under the law were previously uninsured, according to a McKinsey & Co. survey of consumers thought to be eligible for the health-law marketplaces. The result is based on a sampling of 4,563 consumers performed between November and January, of whom 389 had enrolled in new insurance. </p>
<p>One reason for people declining to purchase plans was affordability. That was cited by 52% of those who had shopped for a new plan but not purchased one in McKinsey’s most recent sampling, performed in January. Another common problem was technical challenges in buying the plans, which 30% mentioned."</p>
<p>[Health</a> Exchanges See Little Progress on Uninsured - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579326992266662838]Health”>Health Exchanges See Little Progress on Uninsured - WSJ)</p>
<p>At some point, probably a little more than three months from now, we’ll get the total number of insured people from the insurance companies. At that time, we’ll also know the total number of people enrolled in Medicaid. And then we’ll have a better handle on the net change in uninsured people. Right now, we just don’t know. </p>
<p>It’s wrong, as GP has correctly pointed out, to assume that everyone who signed up for health insurance on the exchanges was previously uninsured. </p>
<p>It’s equally wrong to assume that everyone who was previously uninsured, but is now covered, signed up on the exchanges. Some people are newly covered by insurance they bought directly from the insurer, and some are newly covered because they are now eligible for Medicaid.</p>
<p>dstark:</p>
<p>still a chance to hedge, say for a small (of course) premium. The bench is still there.</p>
<p>CF is a little nicer than me.</p>
<p>GP, Those are political blogs. You were told not to post them by texaspg. </p>
<p>California already has more signups in the middle of Jan than the blogger said California was going to have at the end of March. </p>
<p>The 11 percent number is ridiculous and is contradicted in the article. </p>
<p>I would love to bet on the 11 percent number. </p>
<p>GP, it is GIGO. </p>
<p>Stop reading crap.</p>
<p>Edit… Good idea GP to delete the crap. You know… You can read the blogger’s old
blogs. ;)</p>
<p>"dstark:</p>
<p>still a chance to hedge, say for a small (of course) premium. The bench is still there.
:)</p>
<p>I was in the risk business and I did a lot of hedging. A lot. </p>
<p>But… I dont hedge when the race is over. </p>
<p>I know the results arent officially confirmed, but the race is over. ;)</p>
<p>you never know dstark, what will happen ‘upon further review’…during instant replay, the refs might not see it the same way as you. :)</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>The game is over. It was a slaughter. There isnt going to be any instant replay. 
</p>
<p>I wont bet this. I want more information. Real information. I want to see California’s numbers for the whole month of Jan. California may actually end up with 1.3 million sign ups. </p>
<p>If California can continue signing up 8300 people a day for the rest of the month of Jan… We are highly likely to have 1.3 million signups.
We will see. I am not going to get my info from GP’s blogs. :)</p>
<p>However…</p>
<p>I may have to visit that bench in Golden Gate Park. There might be some takers on the 11 percent uninsured bet. ;)</p>
<p>I don’t think the Wall Street Journal is a blog. The one I did cite is the blog of the one of the foremost non-partisan healthcare experts, Bob Laszewski, in the country. Many of the major publications use his numbers.</p>
<p>McKinsey is a reputable organization. I checked their website and couldn’t find any survey of people eligible to buy health insurance. Where is this survey?</p>
<p>Don’t know but it has been referred to by many major journalistic organizations.</p>
<p>McKinsey is not a bunch of hacks. But other reputable organizations are putting forth very different numbers on the percentage of buyers who were previously uninsured, which is why I wanted to look at McKinsey’s study itself rather than trust journalists’ reports on what it says.</p>
<p>One thing to consider: McKinsey is looking at ALL the people who bought private insurance, not just the people who bought on the exchanges. They say that of all people buying private insurance, 11% were previously uninsured. Some of the other quotes pertain only to people buying on the exchange. They say that 40% or 50% (numbers around there) of people buying on the exchange were previously uninsured. Both those claims could be true.</p>
<p>CF, if the McKinsey study is correct, only 11% of the 2 million sign-ups were uninsured. 200,000 uninsured people getting insurance is not what any of the supporters expected. According to a Bloomberg article I read, a number of healthcare experts are wondering if the drafters of the ACA law have misread the dynamics of the uninsured market. </p>
<p>If after all the sound and fury of Obamacare (the destruction of the individual market and possibly much of the small business group market) we end up with very few uninsured getting insurance, there will be a sea change in the political landscape.</p>
<p>I think that’s a bit of a naive statement. I’m sure many supporters were concerned about regulating a market already considered broken. I’m equally certain some supporters were intelligent enough to fathom that a move toward universal access to join our brethren worldwide would involve a long, painful process corrupted (and distorted) by partisan attempts to sabotage said movement or artificially bolster it as the case may be.</p>
<p>I would hope that a commitment to regulating access and supporting reform wouldn’t be so shallow as to abandon said commitment based on the early difficulties of implementation.</p>
<p>That would be kind of like throwing up your hands and saying, so many years ago, this desegregation thing is just too hard! Lets quit!
Or thinking that the housing market bust was just too messy and daunting to implement mortgage regulations…because the foreclosures didn’t go away fast enough…(but hey, notice that they HAVE ;))</p>
<p>Today is only a snapshot on a long journey. I wish the journey were shorter :)</p>
<p>Last month, BCBS mi couldn’t seem to find its arse with two hands and the exchange site was quirky. This month, I, my son, and employee all got our invoices promptly after signup, got our health cards, and are good to go for Feb. 1. While mine isn’t subsidized, I did use the exchange to process it in case, as self-employed, anything catastrophic were to happen.
That too turned out to be a smoother process than expected.</p>
<p>My point is that many obstacles were smoothed out in a single month, which hopefully means continued improvement.</p>
<p>Now that my employee has gone through the process, he’s helping his dad get signed up. I do think many people are scared or overwhelmed about the process, and that as more people use the system and help others, you’ll see those numbers continue to grow.</p>
<p>But even if only 11% were previously uninsured, I’d still rather have access without the risk of being capped or cancelled and to have the safety net of subsidized premiums in the event of earning or health disasters. And GP, you would too if you’d ever actually been close to someone in those situations.</p>
<p>So Dstark, inquiring minds want to know…Is that money under the park bench, or is that money not under the park bench? :)</p>