Slashdot Mirror

What am I supposed to do about this?

Question the studies and the motivation behind their being pushed so hard ;-)

Question why studies that reach contrary conclusions get no publicity.

Question why, even though there is absolutely zero evidence that stationary standing is better for you, standing desks are being pushed so hard.

Then go for a run.

you cannot sue for HIPAA violations there is no private cause of action, you can file a complaint with the government and they will investigate/prosecute as needed

That used to be the belief. It has been determined inaccurate/incomplete and private suits for HIPAA violations have been successful http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2013/09/06/a-new-way-to-sue-health-care-professionals-using-hipaa/

According to this link, given by sribe earlier in the comments, the actual number of newly insured people is 9.3 million. The 7.1 million number is people who did it through the website only.

I'd like to see where you're getting your figure of 5 million canceled policies.

The DailyMail article says that a RAND Corporation study estimates that the number of previously uninsured people who have actually paid for their policies is: 858,000 (well under a million!). I haven't found a source for this. I believe they computed this number themselves, by reading the RAND report and by using the percentages in that report.

I suspect that was based on an earlier RAND study which was based on data prior to this surge. Anyway, the latest from RAND concludes probably 9.3 million previously uninsured now have insurance--this includes the marketplace, Medicaid expansion, and expansion in employer-sponsored plans.

Weren't something like 6 million people kicked out of their existing health plans and had to enroll in a new one?

Probably more like 5 million. Then in addition to the 2.1 million, you need to add in the expansion in Medicaid coverage and in employer-sponsored programs.

Yes, that is the correct number. So our rulers are telling us that 7 million out of 40 million is great.

Over a period of six months??? It's fucking fantastic!!! This is a problem that has been seemingly intractable for DECADES, and now we see an 18% reduction in SIX MONTHS!!!

Also, it's probably more like 9 million out of 40 million. (Subtract from the 7.1 those who previously had insurance, then add in the newly-insured from Medicaid and employer-sponsored programs.)

In the first year of Obamacare we will still have more uninsured than in the last year of the Bush administration

Bullshit. Best estimate I've seen is that right now, today, the number of uninsured has been decreased by about 25%.

7.1 million sign ups out of over 300 million people for a "mandatory" participation program is truly pathetic regardless whether it is above or below what was expected. Yes yes, I know the number of uninsured was closer to 60 million, so basically you are getting adoption among the intended uninsured population of just 12%. Just 12% of uninsured people are choosing Obamacare/ACA, that is what is remarkable.

Your comment is complete fucking nonsense. 1) Of course, as you sort of admit, out of 330 million people, there are about 300 million with some form of health insurance. 2) There were 40 million without health insurance, not 60 million. 3) In addition to whatever fraction of the 7.1 million were previously uninsured, several million more have been added by the Medicaid expansion. 4) In addition to whatever fraction of the 7.1 million were previously uninsured, several million more have been added to employer-sponsored programs.

It does not include Medicaid.

Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million.

This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
The 9.3 million person increase in insurance is driven not only by enrollment in marketplace plans, but also by gains in employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) and Medicaid.

Enrollment in ESI increased by 8.2 million.

Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had âoeotherâ forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/b...

First and foremost, Id like to see how many of these signups where actually Medicaid.

None. That's 7.1 million enrolled in marketplace plans, which has nothing to do with Medicaid. Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. Enrollment in employer-sponsored health coverage increased by 8.2 million.

(Please dont try to say they arent including the #s).

Well, I am saying it, because it's true ;-)

Now, how many of the 7.1 were people who had some kind of insurance prior: not yet known. How many of the new enrollees in Medicaid previously had other insurance and lost it: unknown. Certainly the number of people with health insurance did not increase by 21.2 (7.1 + 5.9 + 8.2) million, so don't even think about responding to me using a strawman argument that I'm claiming so.

more info here

A few have been able to enroll in Medicaid since the expansion, but that's really not ACA is it?

The Medicaid expansion is part of the Affordable Care Act. What exactly were you trying to say???

If you play with the definition of things then you can make the numbers be whatever you want. Read a report last week that more than 1/3 of those were people that were dropped at the beginning of the year (which means there's very little real gain in number of people insured), and 1/4 hadn't actually paid.

Nobody actually knows how many were people that cancelled--1/3 is just somebody's estimate, and most such estimates are coming from sources that are baldly ideological, one way or the other. As for the 1/4 who haven't paid, I believe the deadline for payment is 4/10, therefore the number of people who had paid by 4/1 is not really meaningful.

The best estimate (so far) out there of how many people have gotten insurance because of ACA is discussed here.

They also don't have large numbers of blacks or Native Americans (a group that comprises nearly all Hispanics of Central and North America, as well as being a major component of the ethnic makeup of a lot of nominally white people), both of which ethnic groups have much higher rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease than Europeans.

Not only that, part of the problem is that the US started from a relatively high cost basis - it's actually below the OECD mean for health care inflation over 2000-2009 (source).

These percentage comparisons [about overhead] may be deceptive, because service costs for Medicare beneficiaries are much higher than those for FEHBP enrollees. The two programs might spend the same dollar amounts on administration, but Medicare's spending would appear lower as a percent of claims. Absolute dollar amounts for private insurance administration are difficult to obtain, but one source does produce estimates for Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. For plans operating a PPO on an administrative services-only basis - essentially the way Blue Cross operates under FEHBP - mean administrative costs per member year were $271 in 2002 (Sherlock Company, 2002). Medicare-s costs in 2002, $4.8 billion for about 36 million fee-forservice beneficiaries, were about $133 per beneficiary, or about one-half as large.

(Emphasis added)

So it sounds like the original 3% quoted might be true, but nevertheless misleading due to the higher cost-per-patient expenses of Medicare's older recipients. Regardless, Medicare's per-beneficiary costs were still lower than Blue Cross Blue Shield, which would indicate a national health care service in the style of Medicare could provide lower administrative costs than the private sector.

-Trillian

Well, Medicare is pretty efficient in terms of low administrative overhead (in part from the cost-effectiveness of buying in bulk with less paperwork).
    http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2006/06/policy_why_medi.html

But I agree with you on Gatto, but for different reasons.
    "The Emergence of Compulsory Schooling"
    http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031028151034651

Schools are efficient, but what they are efficient at doing is dumbing people down for 19th century factory work of a type which barely exists now (among other things schools do to make the average person part of a certain kind of repressive social machinery).

Links for those who are new to Gatto's writings:
    http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
and:
    http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue6.htm

From the second link: "Ordinary people send their children to school to get smart, but what modern schooling teaches is dumbness. It's a religious idea gone out of control. You don't have to accept that, though, to realize this kind of economy would be jeopardized by too many smart people who understand too much. I won't ask you to take that on faith. Be patient. I'll let a famous American publisher explain to you the secret of our global financial success in just a little while. Be patient."

None of the candidates have put this on the table directly. Even vouchers don't address this issue unless you get the money in your pocket for homeschooling.

Actually, McCain has released a detailed rundown of his healthcare plan, and it's totally batshit crazy.

Medicare is surprisingly effecient compared to private medical insurers -- its overhead is 3% compared to 12-20% for private insurers. Link.

Some argue that Medicare has an unfair advantage in that it doesn't have to advertise, doesn't have to offer competing plans, have agents, etc. I say we don't need any of that -- all of that stuff is simply churn. It just takes money away from providing health care, case in point Medicare compared to private industry.