<p>GP…wow…if your word is no good. Ok. </p>
<p>I like the quote…</p>
<p>“Numbers dont lie. People do.”</p>
<p>Since the numbers dont lie… </p>
<p>Do you know what else is looking good? 2015. </p>
<p>Because…there are going to be more formerly uninsured healthy people getting insurance in 2015. </p>
<p>And in my opinion… insurance companies know this. And because they know this…this will put slight pressure on premiums. Downward pressure. :)</p>
<p>“Numbers don’t lie”</p>
<p>Okay, let’s assume the Covered Ca. numbers are accurate, as far as we know. So they claim 728,000 have signed up through end of January. Let’s assume 80% pay for the insurance, leaving 528,000 enrolled. It has been estimated that at least 330,000 of the 1,000,000 canceled polices were eligible for subsidies, so let’s back out these people and assume 198,000 of the enrolled were uninsured. Now it is a leap of faith to assume all these people were uninsured but I will give you the benefit of doubt. Finally, Ca has 18% of the approximate 50 million uninsured in the US, for a total of 9 million people. Of the 9 million people uninsured in Ca, only 198,000 or 2% of California’s uninsured have enrolled for Obamacare. I am overwhelmed.</p>
<p>Also, don’t start in with me about Medicaid. Although another 800,000 have signed up for Medicaid, many of these people would have qualified for Medicaid under pre-Obamacare eligibility criteria and others were re-enrolling as required by the program. But for the sake of argument if you want to assume most of these people were previously uninsured or didn’t qualify for Medicaid before Obamacare, then why didn’t we just expand Medicaid and leave everyone else alone. That way over 5 million people nationwide wouldn’t have lost their insurance as well as the millions who will lose their employer-provided insurance in the coming years.</p>
<p>You forgot the smiley emoticon.</p>
<p>Goldenpooch, whether the enrollees were previously uninsured is irrelevant to the bet that you made. </p>
<p>You bet that by March 31, fewer than 500,000 Californians would have enrolled in exchange plans and paid. It is not yet March 31, but more than 500,000 Californians have enrolled in exchange plans and paid. You, therefore, have already lost the bet. Neither dstark nor I will be impressed by your attempting to move the goalposts. Put those goalposts down, and satisfy the terms of the bet by admitting you were wrong.</p>
<p>You lost. Admit that you were wrong, or reveal yourself as an untrustworthy welcher. We don’t care about your blathering about whether enrollees were previously uninsured. That was no part of the bet.</p>
<p>I’m sitting back, watching the strategy in the latest exchanges. The bet was so narrow, to start. But it was what it was. GP, you may want to offer a waivering acknowledgement the bet is lost (“Maybe; I’d like to see final numbers.”) Then separately bring up the concern whether all target groups had their needs met. Maybe by type. Personally, I’d never try to lob wholesale numbers back at Mr. Numbers. And clearly, opinion hasn’t won any major points over these thousands of posts.</p>
<p>When you collect on the bet and go for those drinks, you should include you-know-who who has managed us through all this. </p>
<p>LF :)</p>
<p>Peter Lee says he doesnt really know how many of the sign ups were insured but says it is a vast majority. He shouldnt really say that if he doesnt know. If the amount of sign ups off exchange were released, we would have a very good idea where we stand.</p>
<p>My latest projections are based on Lee’s usage of “vast majority”. If we dont have a vast majority…then my projections of 4.5 to 6.67 newly uninsured across the US and 900,000 to 1,000,000 in Calif can be off. I have zero interest in misleading anybody. </p>
<p>GPs numbers are wrong. </p>
<p>The bet is over. </p>
<p>I actually got what I wanted from GP.</p>
<p>I dont have that much more to say right now. Idaho is looking great. :)</p>
<p>I would like to learn more about SHOP myself and how employers handle ACA.</p>
<p><a href=“Covered California Enrollees Complain About Limited Doctor Choices Nearby - CBS San Francisco”>http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/02/19/covered-california-enrollees-complain-about-limited-doctor-choices-nearby/</a></p>
<p>Blue Shield - Alameda County
41 doctors supposedly on the list of providers
4 actually taking new adult patients on Covered California plans
1 of those board certified</p>
<p>1 who actually had the knowledge to be board certified? One! This is a sham and a scam.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all. It was totally predictable. (And I was one of those that predicted it years ago, back on cc’s political thread.)</p>
<p>From TatinG’s article:
</p>
<p>This is going to shake out. </p>
<p>Blue Shield in Alameda is narrowing its network to include only the bottom of the barrel. Urgent care clinics? Doctors who (presumably) failed the boards and can’t get certified? So rates have gone up, quality has gone down. Where’s the $2500 savings per family? “If you like your plan you can keep your plan” (scam). “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” (sham). Those who are fixated on the numbers signing up are missing the point. Many people who have signed up are now finding out they’ve bought a pig in a poke and are completely dissatisfied. </p>
<p>On a completely different note, on the Olympic broadcasts I keep seeing ads for one of Sutter Health’s medical practices, the one I’ve been going to for years which was recently bought by Sutter. The ads are fine, but I’m not sure who they are aimed at. If they want to urge people to buy insurance that includes the practice, they’re going about it in a subtle and indirect way.</p>
<p>In the USA-Canada game, I just saw another, similar ad. You know the kind of ad: smiling doctors and nurses taking care of sick people who are not in pain. “Our doctors are blah, blah, blah… Our system is the only one where patients can take their coverage from state to state…” Wait, what? This can’t be an ad trying to persuade people to choose health care at the VA, because only veterans are eligible and they already know about the VA. </p>
<p>Turns out it was an ad for the VA, but instead of being aimed at patients, it was an employment ad. Come work for the VA, they were advertising.</p>
<p>Blue Shield included the former doctor to counter the bad publicity. They aren’t going to do that for every case or they’d have to include all the doctors in the county. The insurance companies should have to have completely accurate provider lists posted on the Covered California website. If there are only four doctors in the county taking new patients in the Blue Shield Covered California plan that should be easily apparent to anyone comparing plans. </p>
<p>Did they ever put the provider lists back up? They took them down after a series of consumer complaints. Personally, I don’t think anyone ever bothered to check. Those lists went up before most doctors had any idea what was going on. One was on television threatening to sue BS to get his name off the list. What a mess.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m in complete agreement about this. How are the insurance companies getting away with posting wrong provider lists? It’s ridiculous. Whichever state agency monitors insurance should be going after these insurance companies.</p>
<p>Covered Ca is invested in signing up numbers. Advertising that the plans have fewer doctors does not advance the agenda.</p>
<p>Covered California is not the agency that monitors insurance. We have a California Department of Insurance. We have an Insurance Commissioner. He should do his job and go after insurers with inaccurate provider lists. </p>
<p>Covered CA is down. Software.</p>
<p>It’s up for me; I just checked.</p>
<p>CC goes down once in a while. CC made changes. We’re all still here because we want it, despite some inconveniences. And so it will be with th new insurance schemes.</p>
<p>And if the Department of Insurance doesn’t go after the insurers, how about the agency that monitors consumer fraud? It seems to me it’s plain old fraud to post a provider list that has no relation to reality.</p>
<p>I have no problem with narrow networks per se. I see no problem with offering lower prices in exchange for not being able to see any doctor on the planet. But IMO it’s just fraud to have false provider lists. A few errors is one thing, but having lists that are complete fantasies is unacceptable. I know this is not a new issue, but it should be dealt with post-haste.</p>