Skip to main content

Okay. First official Obamacare numbers are in. Lets go over numbers.

Health and Human Services released the numbers from October 1 to November 2, 2013 both state run exchanges and federally ran exchanges plus included Medicaid/Chip enrollees.

Even though total ACA enrollee numbers don't look great. The total number of individuals appplying for coverage looks very promising.

Below the squiggle are the charts:

First off are the state run ACA exchanges with:
516,248 applicants. 79,391 ACA enrollees, Medicaid 212,865

HHS Agency released # Obamacare in state-run exchanges: 516,2... on Twitpic

Then the states ran by federal government with:
Applicants=993,635, ACA enrollees=26,794, Medicaid=183,396:

HHS Agency released Obamacare by states run by feds:  Applica... on Twitpic

Notice the high number of applicants  and the total number of individuals (around 1,500,000) applied for. Remember each application may contain multiple family members so you have to watch the numbers the media throw out there.

How did your state do?

Remember these numbers only go through November 2, 2013. almost two weeks ago.

The substantial number of completed applications show the MSM narrative that the ACA website was not working, just wasn't true, except for the first week. How else can there be over 1,500,000 complete applications on a broken website? The website fixes started the first week, and as many of us on DailyKos saw, people started enrolling quickly.

Also, important is the huge number of already approved Medicaid Expansion/Chip enrollees. Very promising.

Here's the link at Health and Human Services where you can download the PDF file. The state breakdown is at page 9 and 10:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    Fighting Liberal at
    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” --Gandhi:

    by smokey545 on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 05:23:10 PM PST

  •  media is ignoring medicaid enrollment numbers (4+ / 0-)

    Abc, NBC did not report the medicaid numbers.....they led with the 26,000 number.  They are completely biased in their reporting.

    •  Well the media is one thing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smokey545, DownstateDemocrat

      And the numbers are another.  What were the projections for this point in the roll-out?  What needs to be the numbers in order to get to a significant benchmark?  

      It's been such a drag to read that actual Democrats are running for cover on this.  Is the reality out there that disastrous?

      How the hell are we supposed to know if this thing is or is not flying without some basis in fact?  

      So, thanks for putting out the numbers.  Now, what do they show us?

      Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

      by Mi Corazon on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 05:50:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Numbers (6+ / 0-)

        The Administration had predicted 500,000 enrollees would sign up in October.  This number includes "paying customers" only.  The actual figure was 106,000.  So, that target was missed by about 80%.  

        Note, the actual number of enrollees is likely lower than the 100k who signed up, as the Administration is counting anyone who completed an application and selected a policy by placing it in the "shopping cart".  Since many are claiming sticker shock, many of these policies are likely to remain unsold.

        There are two key numbers tied to ACA:  7 million & 50%.  Prior to launch, it was widely believed that if fewere than 7 million paying enrollees failed to sign up the system would become insolvent.  Also, the breakdown had to be at least 50 paying customers to new medicaid enrollees or the system would fail.

        Right now, the ratio is 80:20 - and that assumes every policy is actually purchased - which is very, very unlikely to occur.

        If the law, fails to reach these key numerical goals it is expected that it will go into a "death spiral" with insurers cancelling more and more plans, and raising premiums in order to remain solvent --- leading even more consumers to lose their policies.

        As of now, approximately 5 million health insurance policies have been cancelled, as opposed to the 500k (likely inflated as previously discussed) signups.  It is estimated that by 12/31 the total number of cancellations will rise to between 7million & 12 million policies.  Cancellations should continue into 2014 for two reasons.  First, insurance policies tend to roll over quarterly so the cancellations now happening are policies that expired on 12/31 for the most part.  Additional cancellations will occur as we approach 3/31, 6/30 & 9/30.

        Also, with the pending employer mandate Employers are expected to drop many employees policies and force them to use the exchanges.

        Hope this helps.

        •  Typo - Need 50/50; not 50 paying to 1 medicaid (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345

          Typo you need a 50/50 split of paying customers to medicaid subscribers for solvency.

        •  who expects this? (0+ / 0-)
          with the pending employer mandate Employers are expected to drop many employees policies and force them to use the exchanges.
          •  Employer mandate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            I can come up with articles if you want, but I think a personal experience is a better illustration.

            Earlier this year, I was talking to my ex-wife -- she's the head of Administration for a European company that has some American factories.  She's in charge of Finance, HR, etc for the US operations.  As part of these duties she had to make recommendations to Euro management regarding health insurance and hours for their American employees.  They employ several hundred low skill factory workers.  For her company, they would have saved several thousand dollars per employee by cutting employee benefits and taking the IRS penalty.  They decided against it because they felt it was the wrong thing to do, but it was a long drawn out conversation.  Her opinion was, eventually they would end employee health insurance because of the savings.  And, they immediately cut most employee hours down to 29 hours/week in anticipation of next year's mandate.

            Anyway, here is an article discussing an employer survey which found 30% of employers planned to end or curtain employee health benefits.  If the number is correct that impacts about 24% of the market.  Almost 5x more people than are currently being impacted with so much media attention.

            In short, the numbers are beyond brutal.

            http://cnsnews.com/...

            •  CNS News? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              smokey545, bobatkinson

              Really?  You're going to cite CNS News?

              What is the name of the American factories that cut employees hours down to 29?

            •  and btw (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bobatkinson

              that employer study done by McKinsey Quarterly was widely criticized for its methodology.  And then they responded that the study was not intended to be predictive.

              •  Just went through this new user's comment history. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                glynis, randomfacts, flavor411

                90% concern trolling on Obamacare in the two weeks he's been here. A lot of it, as above, citing some pretty dubious reporting. And a couple anti-liberal talking points thrown in, like objecting to the inclusion of maternity care in insurance policies for males.

                •  Let me respond (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  erush1345

                  I've been active on the ACA because I'm disgusted.

                  Don't think that makes me a troll, just someone who can't believe this is how things should have been.

                  I apologize for the source, but a 30 second google search was all I had time to do -- and there are other sources out there...lots of them unfortunately.

                  As for my complaint, I'll stick with it.  Making me pay for maternity care when I'm a middle aged man is a hidden tax and cannot be justified.  I understand risk sharing, but I am physically unable to share that risk.

                  •  Thanks for responding (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    smokey545

                    I'll take you at your word, but challenge your last graph - isn't there a risk that you - or any male - can get a woman pregnant, and shouldn't men be liable for that action? After all, there are laws that require men to pay for child support.  

                    On a more philosophical level, sure, it's a tax, but the health care and health insurance is a social good, and as such its contributions shouldn't be based on usage, or possibility of usage (btw, should infertile women and men not contribute, in your eyes?). Caring and paying for child birth and rearing should be included in that social good.  

        •  It is logical, sounds correct, and helps.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345

          to make me miserable.  I have a hunch that this might become a total disaster.

          When or if employers drop tax subsidized coverage and push people onto the exchange, a poor risk pool means big sticker shock.

          When the corporate version kicks in, there will be a lot more than than 7-12 million people looking for policies and if the prices are bad for folks who make a middle class income, ouch!  And this all occurs right before midterm elections!

    •  That's just wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      steve2012, bobatkinson

      They should at least have the decency to include the state numbers.

      "My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." -Jack Layton (1950-2011)

      by Coco Usagi on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 06:10:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So Did AP Radio News Just After Release (0+ / 0-)

      "Dismal numbers" they described it.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 06:14:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would like to question the quote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smokey545

    " Remember each application contains multiple family members so you have to watch the numbers the media throw out there."

    How do you determine the above is a factual representation of the included tables, which are impressive.
    The headings in the table references "Individuals".

  •  fwiw (0+ / 0-)

    i completed an application, but as expected my employer based care is the better deal. So i won't be picking a plan. I expect i am not alone in that.

  •  This proves that the mainstream media... (0+ / 0-)

    ...is part of the "sabotage Obamacare" effort.

    My parents made me a Democrat. Scott Walker made me a progressive.

    by DownstateDemocrat on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 11:35:33 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site