Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

ObamaCare Clusterfuck: ObamaCare enrollment rate drops in February

Which explains why Obama went on "Two Ferns," eh? WaPo:

Contrary to the Obama administration’s expectations, fewer people chose health plans last month than in either January or December. And the proportion of young adults — a critical demographic if the marketplaces are to function well — did not increase compared with January.

And why would that be, one wonders?

In a conference call with reporters, administration officials said the smaller number of enrollments reflects the fact that February is a short month.

Oh?

>>> 1200000 / 31.
38709.67741935484
>>> 943000 / 29.
32517.241379310344
>>> 32517 / 38709.
0.8400372006510114
>>>

Please. Sign-ups per day are 84% of what they were; the "short month" alibi doesn't cut it. The administration didn't even bother to put together a good lie!

Couldn't be the quality of the product. No way!

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

>>> 943000 / 28.
33678.57142857143
>>> 33678 / 38709.
0.8700302255289467
>>>

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

This calculation shows that daily enrollment numbers in Feb were higher than Jan. I think the problem with your calculation is that you are using the number of days in the calendar month. But in the HHS's report "January" is December 29 to February 1 (a 35 day period), and "February" is February 2 to March 1 (a 28 day period). If you divide the monthly totals by the number of days that means that 32,744/day enrolled in "January" vs. 33,673/day in "February." So yes, the average number of people enrolling per day did increase slightly in "February."

Submitted by lambert on

Whocouldanode? Good catch, I have to say. This must be why you're here. This is fun, at the end of the TNR piece:

The more important question, of course, is what the numbers look like after March 31, when open enrollment ends. The number should exceed 5 million by then. But it’s not clear by how much it will exceed 5 million. (Avalere consulting just announced that it was projecting the number will be 5.4 million.) Nor is it clear how many of those selecting plans will actually pay premiums, without which they will not actually be insured. (Anecdotal reports suggest that, so far, about a fifth of the people selecting plans are not paying premiums initially.) 

No matter what, enrollment is likely to fall short of the Congressional Budget Office’s original projection of 7 million and quite possibly the revised estimate of 6 million. And that could reflect a combination of causes—everything from website problems to political resistance to the cost of the plans, which may simply make the coverage less attractive. On the other hand, enrollment of 5 million people ought to be enough for the system to sustain itself, though conditions will vary from state to state. And it's not like the projections were that scientific in the first place.

The real question of Obamacare is whether it bolsters economic security, improves health care quality and access, and slows down the rising cost of medicine. Raw enrollment numbers can help answer that question, but only in part. 

Pretty funny.

No mention of how many of the sign-ups are new sign-ups of course, so the truly important issue of who gets coverage that doesn't have it is left out.

No mention either of the idea that "resistance" could have anything to do with the quality of the product.

And the classic "progressive" move of throwing those unequally treated under the bus, with "vary from state to state." But who gives two shits that ObamaCare, by design, covers people whimsically and arbitrarily?

And, of course, the pathetically low 5.? million, itself falling short of the pathetically low target of 7 million (silly me, I thought they were lowballing).