Free Markets, Free People

3/4 of ObamaCare enrollees? Previously insured …

Or so says a new McKinsey survey of the numbers:

One of the principal flaws in the coverage of Obamacare’s exchange enrollment numbers to date has been that the press has not made distinctions between those who have “signed up” for Obamacare-based plans, and those who have actually paid for those plans and thereby achieved enrollment in health insurance. A new survey from McKinsey indicates that a large majority of people signing up are now paying for their coverage. This is progress for the health law. But the survey still indicates that three-fourths of enrollees were previously insured.

Of course we’ve seen the propaganda push from the White House that has claimed the numbers (8 million enrolled) mean that the law is working.  As usual, the devil is in the details.  If the law was designed to provide coverage to those who were uninsured, 25% of the total enrolled fitting that description is hardly indicative of that claim’s efficacy.  And when you break down that 25% number, it’s even less indicative:

At most around 930,000 people have gained coverage from Obamacare’s under-26 “slacker mandate” (not 3 million, as is commonly suggested); another 3 million or so have gained coverage from the law’s expansion of Medicaid. Approximately 2.6 million previously uninsured individuals have obtained coverage through the ACA exchanges and the related off-exchange individual markets; however, the off-exchange purchases are mostly unsubsidized, and therefore can’t necessarily be credited to Obamacare.

Here’s a graphic that breaks the McKinsey survey’s results down into a more understandable form:


In reality, what the law has essentially done rearranged the burden of payment among those enrolled while really not doing much at all in terms of reaching those for whom it was supposedly designed to help:

What the exchanges appear to be doing is mainly helping people who were previously insured. If you’re 62 years old, say, and your income is $30,000, and you were paying for your own coverage before, you’re now eligible for plans that are much cheaper for you, thanks to taxpayer-funded subsidies and higher premiums for young people.

Of course that means that other people are paying more. “My old plan was canceled under Obamacare,” an exasperated Californian told me last week. “The new Obamacare plan costs twice as much, and the deductibles are higher. And yet Obama is counting me as one of his 8 million people!” But hey—at least he has maternity coverage.

And I’m sure our Californian is eternally grateful for big brother deciding for him that maternity care was an absolute necessity for which he must pay.  But the point is the 8 million number remains very shaky (and that’s being kind) and it really doesn’t at all reflect what the White House would have you believe it reflects – that the law is working.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

16 Responses to 3/4 of ObamaCare enrollees? Previously insured …

  • This infographic implies that “selected a plan” = “enrolled in a plan” which is different from what I had thought was just “put a plan in the shopping cart.”
    So, if this is true, then we can at least say the numbers from the HHS are less fantasy than we thought.
    Though we still have 15% non-payment rate. Which shrinks the numbers even further.

    • Hey, this should be a surprise from the same people who clearly think health insurance is health care?

      • Another plus for the ACA…by adding so few people to the insured pool, they won’t over tax the healthcare providers.

  • OK, McQ WHY are you fostering this false narrative.  I read on Erp’s blog just yesterday that the whole reason for the Benghazi obsession on the right is that ObamaDoggle is working.  See, the right needs a “scandal” so we have something…anything…to give our racism cover.  And, as Erp assured his readers, ObamaDoggle has been taken off our table of fantasies because it is WORKING so well.
    So, I need an explanation for this line of deception.  Aren’t you simply a pawn in a vast right-wing conspiracy?

    • Don’t be ridiculous, he’s at LEAST a knight or a bishop in the vast right-wing conspiracy.
      Erb on the other hand is a queen of the progressive side (couldn’t resist).

      • Erp The Beneficent…
        Freely forgives you for your delusional attack on His Incisiveness.  As he recently reminded us….

        Moreover, I never carry a grudge or have personal animosity for any of you.  I don’t take your insults seriously but I also don’t hold anything against any of you.

        • I also don’t hold anything against any of you.”
          Well, at least not until late Saturday nights when the chemicals get hold of the system.
          That’s when Howdy Erby turns into Sideshow Erb.

      • McQ only pawn in game of life!

  • I need a point of clarification.
    Do the ObamaCare numbers here in those folks who now are on Medicaid ?

    • In the chart McQ posted, no. Those are just people who are not qualified for Medicaid and includes on and off exchanges.

    Huh?  Health care costs are going up.  Who could’ve predicted THAT…???

  • Doing the math = 6.23% if visitors were previously uninsured.
    According to reports, half of the 6.23% didn’t pay their premiums so are therefore uninsured.
    Now it’s down to 2.15%.
    Any thinking person can see this was a program intended to fail.

    • That should have read: “Now it’s down to 3.15%.”,
      fat fingers strikes again.

      • We just figured you were using the same calculator the Administration uses for it’s numbers.

        • You raaaaacist crackas are not using Nation Of Islam math.  The correct number is 107% of Americans are now insured.
          You know…  Like the margin Pres. ScamWOW carried some Philadelphia voting precincts.

  • ‘As you can easily see,’ Samuelson said, ‘we’ve been getting better and better. The trend is clear.’ He looked at us expectantly in the dim conference room, his outstretched left hand illuminated by the glare of the projector. Silence, then Irene spoke up: ‘Well, what you’re calling a trend only goes back several weeks. If you went back several quarters the graph would actually show an overall decline with a slight improvement at the end….’