April 2, 2014

ObamaCare’s progressive math, revisited

Yesterday I posted about an analysis done on the claim being trumpeted by the White House — and dutifully parroted by its stable of media whores, who I’m beginning to think really do like the pimp hand — but today I’d like to follow up with a bit more unpacking of the downright false numbers being widely reported. Forbes:

A new study from the RAND Corporation indicates that only one-third of exchange sign-ups were previously uninsured.

The RAND study hasn’t yet been published, but its contents were made available to Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times. RAND also estimates that 9 million individuals have purchased health plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges, but that “the vast majority of these people were previously insured.”

The RAND report appears to corroborate the work of other surveys. Earlier this month, McKinsey reported that 27 percent of those signing up for coverage on the individual market were previously uninsured.

[...]

One important finding of the McKinsey survey was that the proportion of those who had formally enrolled in coverage, by paying their first month’s premium, was considerably lower among the previously uninsured, relative to the previously insured. 86 percent of those who were previously insured who had “selected a marketplace plan” on the exchanges had paid, whereas only 53 percent of the previously uninsured had.

But here’s the kicker: As of February 12, 6.2 million previously-insured individuals had lost their health care coverage as a result of Obamacare.  So even were we to take as gospel the White House number of 7.1 million enrollees — the last push to reach that magic number accomplished by using sports stars and celebrities to beg people to sign up (really, it was painful to watch) — that would mean only a net gain of 900,000 insured people.

Factor into that number the duplicate enrollments (we aren’t given those statistics) and the 20% percent of those who according to the New York Times have enrolled but who haven’t paid, and it turns out we’ve nationalized health care and, if my math is correct, have a net loss in coverage of at least 1.1 million.

This, we’re told, is compassionate. It’s forward thinking.   It’s progress.  And the debate over health care, like the debate over global warming, is over.  Obama has decreed that so.

Me, I know it’s all bullshit, and I’m repulsed by a media that simply regurgitates the phoney numbers fed to them by the White House.  They seek to replace reality with their own version of reality created in the Petri dish of progressive social alchemy.  So the question becomes:  Can you do the math and come to the same conclusion I have?

And the answer is simple:  YES WE CAN!

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:27am
9 comments | Trackback

Comments (9)

  1. We need to remember that this whole thing was sold on the premise that there were 40 million uninsured citizens in the U.S. I’ve always thought that figure was bogus to begin with for any number of reasons. The point is, the figure of ostensibly previously uninsured signing up may be a larger percentage of a smaller initial number. This means, the numbers were inflated at the outset in order to magnify a “problem,” to get the public (sort of) on board, along with the “keep your plan,” “keep your doctor” “save $2500 per year lies.” The public would never have supported a program which upended the health care system in this country in order to serve a small percentage of the population.

  2. The public did re-elect this guy. So I’m really not so sure. I’m moving toward a two-state solution. I’ll happily negotiate terms with John Kerry, who can keep his yacht parked wherever in his own country he likes.

  3. At one point Obama declared 46 million were uninsured. I do wonder what happened to all those people. Maybe same blackhole that swallowed up that 777.

  4. While I have a soft spot in my heart for certain geographical areas, I will gladly relocate to wherever the second state may be. Just as long as the first state promises to leave me alone. Of course, I wouldn’t believe the promise.

  5. “I will gladly relocate to wherever the second state may be. Just as long as the first state promises to leave me alone. Of course, I wouldn’t believe the promise.”

    RI,

    The state would probably include Texas and just about every Military retiree would move there so we’d have a pretty formidable arsenal.

  6. I’m willing to chance it, Red.

    Tell me where, and I’m there.

  7. Texas is moving leftwards. I no longer feel it is a haven for people like me.

  8. And I do happen to love Texas. Did some service time there, fell for a preacher’s daughter there, hunt feral hogs there now and visit at least once a year. I do worry about the leftward tilt, though.
    The preacher’s daughter/hunt feral pigs things are not meant to be comparative, by the way.

  9. Pingback: The Camp Of The Saints

Leave a Reply