<p>
Yup, the NGO’s.</p>
<p>LF:</p>
<p>It’s perplexing, every time there’s an event that a disinterested person might raise an eyebrow at, to run into that wall of: “some people think the moon landing was faked, too.” That there’s someone out there that’ll put an innocent spin on a pile of doo, doesn’t begin to make it edible.</p>
<p>Cat, I’m not one dismissing efforts or calling the open-minded, “cheerleaders.” I’d like to see some not have their blood pressure rise, every time some slanted info paints things bleak. Just because some say, eek, more doo, doesn’t mean we all jump and take it as gospel. And come on this thread and say, “look! More doo! And here’s an article that proves it.” Skepticism is good. Critical thinking is good. I’m waiting for more info on Sebelius and I think this Census change is a benefit to those who believed the number of uninsured was overstated. The discussion (and initial test findings) show the number uninsured may have been called a bit high. That was also noted in an Ezra Klein blog, of all places. I didn’t link it. NYT says, maybe 2%. Klein said more than that.</p>
<p>Googling, the info scene is clouded by all the rags that repeat, “Revisions Mask Health Law Effects.” In contrast, BuzzFeed leads with, “New Census Measurement Of Insurance Rates Will Make It “Easier” To Judge Obamacare’s Success” and explains a bit more. </p>
<p>“Health insurance questions have measurement error due to both the reference period and timing of data collection,” the Census Bureau wrote in its announcement of the changes on the Federal Register. “Qualitative research has shown that some respondents do not focus on the calendar year reference period, but rather report on their current insurance status.” So they made a fix, to more accurately collect the info they were seeking. So it seems, to me.</p>
<p>The Census used the new questions about insurance last year, too. So the 2013 Census results (which are not yet reported) and the 2014 Census reports can be compared.</p>
<p>I’m familiar with Klein. In general. Not really surprised that he may currently feel that the uninsured may not been near as high as he used to believe.</p>
<p>I believe we’re predisposed to viewing factual news in whatever way we can accommodate it with the rest of what we think. Until it finally makes sense or we have to tear it all down and build again.</p>
<p>Gallup is not an NGO. It is a for-profit consulting company.</p>
<p>It was an older Klein article. He had all sorts of positives, then laid out how much he thought the uninsured number was off. Sometimes, it’s not bad at all, to tear it down and make it make sense, if it can. I really think the number of wild links on this thread was freaking exhausting. The linkers could have torn those down and made some sense of them, before calling them worthy. We spent a lot of time on those. </p>
<p>Let’s don’t quibble, Fang. </p>
<p>Compared to the Census Bureau, Gallup is a non-governmental organization. Not saying they lobby or have a policy mission but they are out of the reach of the administration. </p>
<p>For our purposes, the Gallup information will be superior. I don’t think either Gallup or the US Census is to be mistrusted, but we’re not going to get the Census info for 2014 for more than a year. Gallup is giving us info every month. And we also may get information from insurance companies about how many individual policies they have sold on and off the exchange, though that info has not been as forthcoming as I’d wish.</p>
<p>Fang, it’s going to be a while before the insurance companies can do non-core projects like reporting sales. They are still slammed (from all those new policies no one bought 
). Anthem is still trying to process a marketplace directive to make my D’s coverage effective Jan. 1. No one disputes that it should be. They just haven’t gotten to it yet, and I was told just today that it may be a while longer. </p>
<p>Catahoula, the term “non-governmental organization” has a specific meaning, and that meaning is not “any organization which isn’t part of the government.” Missions and purposes vary, but one thing they all have in common – they are non-profit.</p>
<p>Thanks for the second correction to what I already pointed out to Fang was a simplification, LasMa. I imagine, though, that we can all agree that it’s an interesting day indeed when for-profits looks more impartial than an arm of the government.</p>
<p>
And the changes that took place between the two years would demand the old questions be asked for years. At least till the law’s fully implemented.</p>
<p>Or, maybe till we stop having elections which will probably be about the same day, come to think of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all. We’ll have the 2013 baseline, so we’ll have the pre-ACA situation. That’s what we need. We’ll also have the monthly Gallup numbers.</p>
<p>Thank God for Obamacare! My dear niece is an artist, who doesn’t earn much money. She’s always been healthy. But suddenly she was just diagnosed with cancer. For all my worries about her, at least I don’t have to worry that she won’t be able to afford her treatment. </p>
<p>Thank goodness, Fang! Best to your niece as she fights the disease.</p>
<p>Supposedly what she has is very curable. I’m optimistic.</p>
<p>Good.</p>
<p>Meantime,
</p>
<p>[Insurers</a> see brighter Obamacare skies](<a href=“Insurers see brighter ACA skies - POLITICO”>Insurers see brighter ACA skies - POLITICO)</p>
<p>So I think that at the least, we can put the “death spiral” canard to bed.</p>
<p>Best hopes for her, CF.</p>
<p>Thanks, LF and LasMa.</p>
<p>Sending +++++++ vibes to your niece, CF! </p>
<p>My 45 yr. old cousin was just diagnosed with Stage 3 colon cancer. Had emergency surgery after showing up at ER bleeding profusely. They believe the got the whole tumor out and nothing in her nodes so hasnt spread. Prognosis is excellent. She is obviously not old enough for colonoscopy testing recommendation and she dismissed pain in abdomen until she could longer ignore it. Very lucky that it its not worse, IMO. </p>
<p>Best wishes, CF. I can’t make this sound any less awkward so… thank goodness she was diagnosed now and not anytime before January! (Not that I would wish for any diagnosis like that).</p>
<p>Rom, thank you for the kind wishes. I don’t think you sounded awkward. I was thinking the same thing-- at least she has coverage, thank goodness. She’ll be able to go to the hospital and get her chemo without worrying about bills. Glass half full: she has a kind of cancer that’s very curable, and she won’t have to worry about money.</p>