Skip to main content

View Diary: Gallup: Uninsured rate lowest since 2008 (61 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ah. I think I'm crossing the streams. (0+ / 0-)

    There seems to be two kind of numbers getting batted about, one that can be established pretty well and another that has to be estimated to a lower degree of certainty.

    The first is exchange enrollments, and I'm pretty comfortable with those.  Where I start running into trouble is when people start talking about people who would not otherwise be insured. My family, for example, are exchange enrollments, but we'd have been insured anyway.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon May 05, 2014 at 01:35:36 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The Gallup numbers are entirely independent (0+ / 0-)

      of the exchange numbers. Gallup calls hundreds of people up every day and asks them whether they are insured on that day, along with other questions. Every two weeks it aggregates the data and publishes some summary results. This an excellent, statistically valid methodology, which permits a proper calculation of confidence intervals and other analysis, which unfortunately Gallup does not publish.

      The Exchanges by design do not ask people applying whether they are insured. So we cannot cross-check any of the signups with the Gallup data. All we know is that signups went way up and uninsurance went way down, neither to the levels we want. But the next Open Enrollment period will go much more smoothly.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:21:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gallup numbers something else entirely... (0+ / 0-)

        And they seem to be a good indicator.  I wish they went back further because people were losing jobs at the end of the Bush administration, but, at the very least, we can see a 9% drop in the uninsured at the end of the Bush administration as measured by Gallup.  Don't know if we can simply translate that up to the full US population, but, if we can, that would represent about 3.8 million people insured today who wouldn't be insured if conditions were identical to those at the end of the Bush administration.

        That would seem to be the steady-state benefit of ACA.

        It would be interesting to know how much it would have helped during the worst parts of the current depression.  The ability to soften the blow of economic cycles may prove to be a bigger benefit than the ongoing effect.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:29:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site