1.7 million ACA-compliant QHPs sold OFF-exchange

[exGOPer]

And there we have it: Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post reports that BCBSA (the family of Blue Cross companies, as well as Anthem, Regeant, etc) confirms 1.7 million ACA-compliant QHPs sold OFF-exchange nationally from October 1st through March 1st (that's right, the rest of March isn't included; for comparison, March made up 40% of the exchange QHP total for the open enrollment period):

Newsy: BlueCrossBlueShield companies sold 1.7 million ACA-compliant policies OFF-exchange between 10/1-3/1. #obamacare

— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) April 3, 2014

@charles_gaba @Cripipper no link. I had been asking for the data and I got it the old fashioned way--a phone call.

— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) April 3, 2014

http://acasignups.net/14/04/03/bcbsa-reports-17m-exchange-qhps-not-including-march

 

[PiggyBank]

and im one of them. why? BECAUSE MY FUCKING PLAN WAS CANCELLED. whoa what a revelation, those whose plans were cancelled bt new ones. If you're implying you can count people who lost their plan BECAUSE of the aca, as newly insured, you are in fact retarded.

 

[jem]

exactly... and that might be what they are doing.
the only thing we know about the WH numbers is that there is no reason to believe they are trustworthy.

 

[exGOPer]

and im one of them. why? BECAUSE MY FUCKING PLAN WAS CANCELLED. whoa what a revelation, those whose plans were cancelled bt new ones. If you're implying you can count people who lost their plan BECAUSE of the aca, as newly insured, you are in fact retarded.

The article was posted to show that the stories about people not replacing their insurance plans are completely bogus.

You need to calm down, you are making all the implications and then getting all worked up for no reason.

 

[PiggyBank]

The article was posted to show that the stories about people not replacing their insurance plans are completely bogus.

You need to calm down, you are making all the implications and then getting all worked up for no reason.

i don't "need" to do shit, twinkle toes. did you not see the word if? IF that was what you were implying.

I haven't heard or read anything claiming that masses of people whose plans were cancelled, weren't buying new plans. for all i know, you're making it up.

 

[exGOPer]

i don't "need" to do shit, twinkle toes. did you not see the word if? IF that was what you were implying.

Ofcourse you don't need to do calm down, living in a perpetual state of phony outrage is what Cons do.

And I did see the "IF" which is why I acknowledged your implication.

I haven't heard or read anything claiming that masses of people whose plans were cancelled, weren't buying new plans. for all i know, you're making it up.

Republican critics of the law have suggested that the cancellations last fall have led to a net reduction in coverage.

That is not supported by survey data or insurance companies, many of which report they have retained the vast majority of their 2013 customers by renewing old policies, which is permitted in about half the states, or by moving customers to new plans.

"We are talking about a very small fraction of the country" who lost coverage, said Katherine Carman, a Rand economist who is overseeing the survey.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...tional-20140331,0,5472960.story#ixzz2xxaDj0P6

 

[PiggyBank]

Ofcourse you don't need to do calm down, living in a perpetual state of phony outrage is what Cons do.

1) And I did see the "IF" which is why I acknowledged your implication.




Republican critics of the law have suggested that the cancellations last fall have led to a net reduction in coverage.

That is not supported by survey data or insurance companies, many of which report they have retained the vast majority of their 2013 customers by renewing old policies, which is permitted in about half the states, or by moving customers to new plans.

2) "We are talking about a very small fraction of the country" who lost coverage, said Katherine Carman, a Rand economist who is overseeing the survey.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...tional-20140331,0,5472960.story#ixzz2xxaDj0P6

1) so you intentionally didn't bold it to make it seem as if it was a statement. douchey move.

2) if 6 mil lost coverage due to obamacare and that is a very small fraction (ie insignificant) then what's so great about adding 7.1 mil? lol

from your link: "Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates."

so a million people who had and paid for insurance may not be covered now because of the aca. nice.

Also from your link: "At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs"

u think that is a good thing? holy shit, if we're just gonna fully subsidize the uninsured why not just do it without the ACA. this law is a fucking joke.

 

[exGOPer]

1) so you intentionally didn't bold it to make it seem as if it was a statement. douchey move.

What? I pointed out your phony outrage, getting all worked up because of imagined implications.

2) if 6 mil lost coverage due to obamacare and that is a very small fraction (ie insignificant) then what's so great about adding 7.1 mil? lol

What lol. Your 6 million claim is DEBUNKED by the Rand study, two more studies came out last week which again debunk people losing insurance.

What you are not getting is that many people who had to switch their policies, did so off the exchange, and are not included in the total numbers yet.

from your link: "Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates."

so a million people who had and paid for insurance may not be covered now because of the aca. nice.

I guess in my world, 5+ million who gained insurance not including Medicaid is a better number.

Also from your link: "At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs"

u think that is a good thing? holy shit, if we're just gonna fully subsidize the uninsured why not just do it without the ACA. this law is a fucking joke.

So everything should be an total solution, mixing private and public to bring down the number of uninsured is a 'joke'.

Simple solutions for simple minds I suppose.

 

[PiggyBank]

1) What? I pointed out your phony outrage, getting all worked up because of imagined implications.



2) What lol. Your 6 million claim is DEBUNKED by the Rand study, two more studies came out last week which again debunk people losing insurance.

3) What you are not getting is that many people who had to switch their policies, did so off the exchange, and are not included in the total numbers yet.



4) I guess in my world, 5+ million who gained insurance not including Medicaid is a better number.



5) So everything should be an total solution, mixing private and public to bring down the number of uninsured is a 'joke'.

Simple solutions for simple minds I suppose.

1) let me give you some much needed advice ms wagner: telling people what they feel is an exercise in futility.

you think i was what, happy, my plan got cancelled? It is indeed outrageous for the gubberment to pick winners and losers in a nation founded on individual liberty.

2) what do you mean: "two more studies came out last week which again debunk people losing insurance." ARE (caps so u notice the word) you suggesting people didn't lose their insurance policies?

3) how do you figure i don't get this, when i fucking said if you were counting these people as newly insured you're a retard.

4) that's great but a million people who were covered, possibly aren't now. see #1 for why that's bullshit. does it occur to you that maybe they can't afford the new policies? Also does it occur to you that when the employer mandate finally kicks in there will possibly be many millions more who lose their existing policies?

also, the president is touting 7+ mil added, so if 4.5m of that is medicaid, then where are you getting 5 million (not including medicaid) newly insured from? the actual data isn't even available so this is all a waste of time anyway. it doesn't even matter if 9 mil got added, with subsidies, higher prem/ded, new taxes, and new bureaucracy.. this law does more harm than good.

5) dumb statement. there is no mixing private and public, all of this is payed for by taxpayers. every subsidy. the govt doesn't have money, they take it through taxes and give it away. im not for medicaid, i was making a point that if more than half of the newly insured are getting 100% subsidized it would have been a lot easier to simply expand medicaid than change the whole system. the reason they didn't do that is they needed to fuck over the young crowd with higher prems and the rich with taxes to try and pay for this garbage.

l'm outta here so have a good weekend getting ass pounded. lol

 

[jem]

I saw a big strawman

I don't believe I ever saw any republican expecting a lasting net reduction in coverage.
That would be an incredible failure considering there is an individual mandate and massive subsidies.

it would mean the plans were so bad and so expensive, people who previously were covered choose no insurance at at all. Not likely.

What i s most likely to happen is that when all is done. There will be very expensive premiums. The govt will therefore suck out ever disposable dollar of income from the working class and the FED will continue to inflate away people's lifetime of savings and investments. If person does manage to save anything in this oppressive regime they will take it back in estate taxes. Keeping the cronies on top.

The private tax payer working class will shrink to the point where 70% of Americans get handouts...
or there will a massive snap back to liberty and no income taxes.

that massive populist revolution to liberty is fighting and uphill battle. Unfortunately.


its going to take really good organizing and really charismatic leaders to fight through the media bullshit.