<p>Looks like 1.1 million, but is that full year, or what?</p>
<p>End of the year.</p>
<p>If only 1.1 million Californians had private insurance, and only 39% of them are eligible for subsidies, then we have about half a million previously uninsured people signing up on the exchanges.</p>
<p>I am glad nobody checks my math. 1.25 million -735,000 is 515,000. I have to be careful. Hard to read on this phone. 
I read 1.25 as 1.225. No real change though.</p>
<p>If the formerly insured is 1.1 million, instead of 1.5 million, the amount of newly insured in Calif is a lot higher than I stated previously.
A lot.</p>
<p>CF, I did not see your last post.</p>
<p>Here is one thing I noticed from that link: Only 1,232 out of the 1.1 million individual plans were the so-called limited benefit plans. Thank god we destroyed the individual market to eliminate those nasty plans which were .1% of the market.</p>
<p>I am glad you read from the link.</p>
<p>dstark, since your are obsessed with how many uninsured are signing up for Covered Ca., I thought I would take a crack at it. If we get 1 million paying enrolled by March 31 (I want to see hard numbers on who has paid) and 40% of the 1.1 million, who already had individual plans prior to Obamacare, enrolled on the exchange, that would mean slightly over 500,000 were uninsured. Of course, this number doesn’t take into consideration people who lost their group coverage and signed up for a Covered Ca. plan. The 500,000 is a very aggressive number; it is probably a lot less than that. According to the data I have seen, there were 7 million uninsured in the state. That means 7% or less than one out of ten of the uninsured signed up for your wonderful Obamacare.</p>
<p>That sounds about right. Try taking a random poll of the healthy uninsured in your local WalMart… One in ten would not surprise me.</p>
<p>It is 5.6 million eligible. That is both private insurance and medicaid. There are 2.6 miion eligible for private insurance and 2.9 million eligible for medicaid.</p>
<p>Uhhhh… You are missing a couple of things. We are going to end up with 1.25 million sign ups. You arent counting off exchange sign ups. You are forgetting about medicaid.</p>
<p>Kaiser said 87 percent paid. Anthem and Blue Shield both said 85 percent paid. Many of the unpaid’s bills arent due or the billing is screwed up.</p>
<p>If 20 percent of the uninsured sign up this year that is great. This is a multi year deal.</p>
<p>500,000 is not an aggressive number. That may be the number and that is fine.</p>
<p>I will take 500,000 from you. I will take 5.2 million from catahoula because they are realistic numbers.</p>
<p>No one knows how many of the Medicaid sign ups were renewals, would have qualified under the old regime or were previously insured. However, if you want to argue that many of them were uninsured, then why not expand medicaid to allow all the uninsured to enroll there, instead of inflicting this carnage on the individual market and tormenting so many people who liked their plans.</p>
<p>Why not let everyone sign up for Medicaid? Dude. You’re preachin’ to the choir here, but you know single payer would never have happened.</p>
<p>BTW, quoting the 85% number for those who have paid conveniently overlooks the fact that almost half of the uninsured have not paid, which will further depress your uninsured number. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, my old plan was cancelled because it was not grandfathered.</p>
<p>It would have been grandfathered if I had been on it prior to March of 2010, but I signed up sometime after that because it was a better plan than the plan I had been on before 2010, which happens to be the same plan that GP came onto later on-- so he wasn’t grandfathered either. The relevant issue isn’t the plan, but the time when the person bought it. </p>
<p>My insurance company would have rolled me automatically to a new, ACA compliant plan. The plan they would have rolled me onto happens to be identical to the one I picked on the exchange. But I went to the exchange because I want to be subsidy eligible. It’s a tossup at best as to whether I will be – my income is too close to the cut off. But I figure that even if there was only a 10% chance of subsidy eligibility, it makes sense to keep that door open. </p>
<p>my mistake. If they offered you a plan, did the cost go up considerably which I thought was GP’s main complaint?</p>
<p>Calmom, if you had the same plan as me and if you don’t qualify for the subsidy, welcome to the rest of us who are paying significantly more for inferior coverage.</p>
<p>Forgot to exclude myself. I am out of the individual market</p>
<p>“Why not let everyone sign up for Medicaid? Dude. You’re preachin’ to the choir here, but you know single payer would never have happened.”</p>
<p>Don’t misquote me. I am only referring to the uninsured. </p>
<p>texas, yes, her cost went up considerably if she doesn’t qualify for the subsidy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s right, and then we also need to calculate the number of uninsured who signed up off exchange. </p>
<p>Oh, the GP plan is that you only get free insurance if you are uninsured? Alotta guys, if they find out they’ll get free insurance if they don’t buy insurance, are not going to buy insurance. I’m just sayin’.</p>
<p>Medicaid is a month to month program. People regularly sign up and fall off so ACA is not actually helping anyone who already qualified for Medicaid whether they used it or not. It only actually helps that little chunk of Medicaid recipients that now qualify due to expansion since. the rest were already handled. Carry on counting. </p>