Obamacare: 8 million claimed. But Falls Way Short.

[_bcspace]

The Obama administration has announced that the number of people age 18-35 enrolled in Obamacare is 28 percent — a figure that is still well below the 40 percent needed to make the health reform law a viable institution.

But although that's worrying news for the Affordable Care Act, the news is even worse for millions of Americans — there could be substantial rate hikes on health insurance premiums in 2015, according to the National Journal.

President Barack Obama and his staff met on Thursday in the White House for an hour with state representatives from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), and directly following the meeting the commissioners were shown the new enrollment numbers, according to The Hill.

The 44 commissioners were told that 35 percent of people who have signed up for Obamacare enrollees are under the age of 35, the Journal reported. But administration officials also noted that only 28 percent of enrollees are in the coveted 18-35 age bracket, meaning that 7 percent of enrollees are under 18.

The administration has repeatedly said that Obamacare specifically needs young people, ages 18-35, to make 40 percent of total signups to offset the costs of care for less healthy and older people, the Fiscal Times reported. But the new figures show that the enrollees are still 12 percentage points below that vital number.

Nevertheless, NAIC President-Elect Monica Lindeen was elated by the figures. "That's a pretty good number in terms of trying to make sure that we have a healthy [risk] pool," she told The Hill.

But the current NAIC President, Adam Hamm, was slightly more guarded, saying he wanted to see more detailed figures before deciding whether Obamacare was working — or not.

The meeting, attended by Vice President Joe Biden, outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Commissioner Marilyn Tavenner, also raised the question of potential rate increases in 2015.

The Hill reported that the administration is "hoping to use its influence to prevent substantial price hikes" that could hurt incumbent Democrats in the upcoming elections.

But Hamm, North Dakota's insurance commissioner, admitted that NAIC is expecting to receive a slew of suggested hikes pouring into his headquarters.

"I don't have specific information for you," Hamm said. "I would be speculating. We'll see the rate-increase requests when they come into our office. All of us will do the same job on those rate-increase requests as we've done historically — only approve those that are justified."

And pointing out that the NAIC would not be affected by any outside influence, he added, "You can't play politics with rates, and that's not something we're going to do."

Hamm also noted that that they have to balance the books between what consumers can afford to pay to what insurance companies must bill to keep them afloat, the Journal said.

But he warned that such factors as "unknown risk pools or transitioning grandfathered plans" might result in higher rates, or even possibly lead to lower rates.

The White House announced on Thursday that 8 million people nationwide have enrolled in private plans on the federal and state health insurance exchanges. And the president announced that "this thing is working."

Following Obama's boast, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said Thursday on Fox's "Special Report with Bret Baier" that Obamacare is only "working in that it exists."

Krauthammer said the health reform law "is hurting the doctor, hurting the hospital, hurting the patient, it's hurting the economy. It's going to cost a fortune."

http://www.moneynews.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-young-people-falls/2014/04/18/id/566371/

So the Obama Admin's plan to keep rates low is "influence"?



Trust the facts on the ground and the economics. The rates were significantly raised despite some states' politically manufactured claims (remember California?). They continue to rise and the rate of increase will accelerate as long as Obamacare exists. Sure, the government will throw money at it like it's doing now to try and hide it, but the facts on the ground tell the story. Higher premiums, higher taxes, higher spending, less coverage, less quality of coverage. more unemployment, more underemployment, etc.

[_bcspace]

Bump for Analytics.

[_Analytics]

Bump for Analytics.

The article you copied makes almost as little sense as the comments you added to the bottom. Since it cited the National Journal, I hoped that source would explain your position better.

The front page your source has the following article:

Good News for Obamacare Is Bad News for Conservative Pundits

Conservatives were sure at every turn that Obamacare would fail, but as the numbers roll in, those convictions are looking increasingly ideological.

First they said nobody would enroll. Then they said first-year premiums would be through the roof. And later, they warned of a "death spiral," wherein premiums would go up uncontrollably. My colleague Sam Baker has written an excellent analysis of the situation, the upshot of which is that Obamacare is on a winning streak.

The next great frontier of conservative hyperbole concerns premiums for 2015, with critics warning that costs will double or even triple next year.

As of this week, we have good evidence to the contrary. Health insurance premium rates are expected go up just 7 percent—a rate of increase much lower than what critics were predicting. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is predicting that premium hikes will be relatively modest.

"The double-rate increases we've been hearing are probably exaggerated," Dave Axene, a fellow with the Society of Actuaries, told USA Today. "That's not what we're seeing from the actuarial organizations—I guess we're being a little bit more optimistic."

"A little bit more optimistic" is something of an understatement. For weeks, pundits have been spouting apocalyptic notions about the costs of insurance premiums, warning Americans that "the worst is yet to come."

Writing in The Washington Post last month, Michael Gerson speculated that premium increases could hit triple digits. "Over the past several years, increases in insurance premiums have averaged nearly 6 percent," he wrote. "Because of the rocky launch, age distribution, and delayed provisions of Obamacare exchanges, insurance company officials expect far larger premium increases this spring—in the double digits, if not the triple digits, in many places."

He goes on to reprimand the Obama administration for failing to prepare Americans for these drastically increased premiums, calling it "another round of Obamacare overpromising." In fact, it's Gerson who's blown the expectations game—not that he's alone in that.

Just last week, Scott Gottlieb, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in Forbes that "health insurance premiums are showing the sharpest increases perhaps ever" and that "rate hikes have accelerated as Obamacare's regulations have started to get implemented."

In an appearance on Meet the Press, John Sununu cited a report from WellPoint that predicted "double-digit-plus" increases. The report startled analysts at the time, with some saying they suspected the company was "hedging bets" in case of a change in rules. But that nuance didn't make it into Sununu's talking points.

And conservative blogger Ed Morrissey cited a sensational headline to make his case. "Remember how Barack Obama and Democrats promised to 'bend the cost curve downward' with ObamaCare?" he wrote on Hot Air. "Well, they got most of that promise correct. Obamacare has bent the cost curve all right, but sharply upward—and in 2015, expect them to not just bend but absolutely 'skyrocket.' "

That report was widely bandied about in the conservative blogosphere. "In politics, there's only so much massaging of the truth and flat-out lying that one can do before the headlines catch up with the deceit," wrote National Review's Charles Cooke. "Here's one that ought to scare the hell out of any Democrats who are still hoping that The Charge of the Light Brigade can be an effective electoral strategy for them: 'O-Care premiums to skyrocket.' " In this case, of course, it was deceit that caught up with the headlines.

The origin of these critics' argument can be traced to a thinly sourced article in The Hill, which quoted a former Cigna executive saying things like, "My gut tells me that, for some people, these increases will be significant." The reports about insurance rates possibly tripling, which were widely repeated, appear to come from a single anonymous insurance executive.

The irony is that, had conservatives been a little less quick to trumpet every nugget of potentially bad news, the administration would be riding a little less high right now—and their own predictions would look a little less silly.

Nobody knows for sure what will happen next year. And there are still plenty of Obamacare supporters who envision premium increases in the double digits. But pundits like Gerson and even some straight news outlets have been far too confident that everything will be terrible.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... s-20140418

[_bcspace]

It's quite telling when you fail to address the facts presented which vindicate all the predictions. Perhaps you didn't know that, except for the most secure Dems, they running from Obamcare in an election year? Why is that? You claim the situation is not as dire yet the very people who the bill understand that it is.

Keep trying and let me know when you come up with something substantial.

[_Analytics]

It's quite telling when you fail to address the facts presented which vindicate all the predictions. Perhaps you didn't know that, except for the most secure Dems, they running from Obamcare in an election year? Why is that? You claim the situation is not as dire yet the very people who the bill understand that it is.

Keep trying and let me know when you come up with something substantial.

The amount of support a politician gives something is based on his own beliefs and political strategy. The assertion that "the very people who the bill" (whatever that means) doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it is working as designed.

Why do you think David Axene, Fellow of the Society of Actuaries, and the "actuarial organizations" to which he refers don't see it the way you do?

[_bcspace]

Oh c'mon. [Best Dooku voice] Surely you can do better! That is..if the facts are on your side. The fact in play here is that the Dems are doing everything they can to make jagged metal O's feel like Cheerios as they go down.

If Obamacare is such a good thing, they would be using it. Now someone like Pelosi in a safe district will tell you things like it's time to move on and it's 'settled law', trying to make the American people give up when the fact is that there is no such thing as settled laws.

[_Analytics]

Oh c'mon. [Best Dooku voice] Surely you can do better! That is..if the facts are on your side. The fact in play here is that the Dems are doing everything they can to make jagged metal O's feel like Cheerios as they go down.

If Obamacare is such a good thing, they would be using it. Now someone like Pelosi in a safe district will tell you things like it's time to move on and it's 'settled law', trying to make the American people give up when the fact is that there is no such thing as settled laws.

[Best stiff actor voice]My powers have doubled since the last time we met, Count!

I'm interested in the reality of the law from the perspective of the wonks that designed it, not your cynical thoughts about whether this or that politician thinks the law is popular.

I happen to agree with the CBO's position on the law: a critical mass of people have signed up for it, the business mix is about right, and the law seems to be working as designed to cause market forces to keep premium growth under control. If you disagree with the CBO, let me know the specifics and we can discuss their analysis.

Otherwise, feel free to run away and hide like General Grievous.

[_bcspace]

I happen to agree with the CBO's position on the law: a critical mass of people have signed up for it, the business mix is about right, and the law seems to be working as designed to cause market forces to keep premium growth under control. If you disagree with the CBO, let me know the specifics and we can discuss their analysis.

Meaningless. The CBO does not have the details to say what percentage of young healthy people signed up. It does not have state by state data. It does not have figures on how many have paid the first premium. It does not have real figures on how many of the 8 million were previous uninsured etc.

All '8 million' is is a physiological figure meant to drum up political inevitability and buy votes. Numbers of people who sign up has never been the basis for why Obamcare doesn't work and will never work. That's because the law has built into it a channel for additional funds (from taxpayers and adding to the national debt) to perpetually underwrite it. This is the foundation of all socialist programs. Keep feeding it money and it will look like it works. That is how wealth is destroyed, not created, because the unproductive part of the economy is being fed.

So far, everything I have predicted has come true. More unreplaced jobs lost. More unreplaced policies lost. Quality and supply of health care has gone down. An acceleration of the cost of insurance premiums. A huge and unsustainable burden on the economy.

And so far, all you have to gainsay it are Democratic talking points. Looks like you bought heavily Big Insurance's lobbyist line (Big Insurance is the ONLY net beneficiary of Obamacare) and can't back out.

[_Analytics]

I happen to agree with the CBO's position on the law: a critical mass of people have signed up for it, the business mix is about right, and the law seems to be working as designed to cause market forces to keep premium growth under control. If you disagree with the CBO, let me know the specifics and we can discuss their analysis.

Meaningless.

Meaningless to you perhaps, but not to people who actually understand the basics of health insurance in America. You and your sources are absolutely clueless about what's going on.

Case in point. Adam Hamm, the insurance commissioner of North Dakota, said in the article quoted in the OP, "I don't have specific information for you, I would be speculating. We'll see the rate-increase requests when they come into our office."

People who know the basics of insurance know "our office" refers to the office of the North Dakota department of insurance. The guy who wrote this article somehow thought "our office" referred to the NAIC's office in Kansas City. The fact that you highlighted this article and this phrase which contains such a glaring error proves you don't even understand the basic facts of what the NAIC is and how insurance is regulated.

The fact you don't even understand that illustrates your level of ignorance on this topic, which explains why you think sound analysis of the facts is "meaningless."

[_ajax18]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -For-Plans

Over half of the 221,604 Georgia Obamacare "enrollees" the Obama administration claims as enrollments have not paid for their plans, thereby leaving them still uninsured.
Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens says only 107,581 Georgians have paid for coverage.
"Many Georgians completed their application process by the deadline, but have yet to pay for the coverage," Hudgens said in a statement.
Hudgens also said that insurance department estimates that 400,000 Georgians may lose their current health insurance coverage because of Obamacare.
According to the New York Times, 20% of the individuals whom the Obama administration claims among its eight million Obamacare enrollees have not activated coverage by paying their premiums.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/58/587112fd75db27497c423a8ccb84f860130231bb16236315b16c02fa36971ab5.jpg