4/13/14

According to the administration we have 7,500,000 enrollees in the ACA exchanges. I do not trust that number mainly because one can never trust anything this administration says.

In their “the goal justifies the means” philosophy they clearly are at best telling us truth but not all the truth and many, many times they are also not telling only truths. They have a knack to ONLY have available good numbers. When the information is bad for them, they do not have this data point—really?

The usual questions from all sides regarding the enrollee numbers are:

  • How many ACTUALLY paid their premiums?
  • How many are young/healthy because of the fear of natural adverse selection in the process—mainly sick people get coverage.
  • How many are new to the health insurance arena? After all, that was the main driver and purpose of the law—to cover those that had no insurance.

But there is one other number related to the last question that no one discusses and the information is not available. It is always shocking to me to find out, again and again, how shallow, superficial, and unprofessional reporters are because if they were, they would make the distinction which I am about to make here that is crucial to understanding the numbers.

So we now have enrollees. That is the term. Have you noticed that this administration is MASTERFUL in inventing new terms that always serve to spin and pull wool over our eyes? Remember the “jobs saved” charade? No one knows how many jobs are saved, no one knows why jobs are saved, and that is why in the past ALL administrations ALWAYS counted job created as a mark of economic success of this or that program. That was true until Obama needed to justify the “stimulus” which on the face of it was a shocking failure (and indeed it was/is a failure). So they invented the new measure: “job saved”? Really?

There are 7,500,000 enrollees. Let’s assume that this is correct. BUT we also know that many people lost their existing and satisfactory-to-them health insurances DUE TO ObamaCare. The numbers on that element run between 6,000,000 to 9,000,000 depend on who you listen to. HOWEVER, did you notice that when discussing these canceled coverages we always hear the term policies—6,000,000 policies were canceled, yet when we hear about administration success it is always about enrollees.

Is there a distinction? Absolutely there is. What is the difference, you ask? I am not sure but here is what I do know:

The 6,000,000 canceled policies for SURE, absolutely, 100% covered way, way more than 6,000,000 people. Did they cover 20,000,000 people? Did they cover 12,000,000 people? I do not know but it is in that range. After all most policies are for a family unit—parents and children. I do not know the correct average and no one is saying but let’s assume there were 2 per policy and thus 12,000,000 people were covered by the low estimate of 6,000,000 policies canceled.

How does that stack against the enrollees’ number? Do enrollees mean 7,500,000 PEOPLE or does it mean 7,500,000 POLICIES? Knowing this administration I have NO DOUBT that if the 7,500,000 were indeed policies they would TOUT it up from the rooftops as it would mean more like 15,000,000 PEOPLE and we would have heard about it 24/7 from administration figures so the conclusion is that enrollees mean people and thus we only have 7,500,000 PEOPLE signed on which must mean closer to 3,750,000 POLICIES.

If my analysis is true, that is a shocking failure—6,000,000 policies canceled with say 12,000,000 people insured compared to 7,500,000 insureds on the exchange. That’s TERRIBLE. But no one asks the question; no one presents the analysis. Why?

Unbelievable.

CNN

Just a short note to say that after five weeks, I repeat weeks not days, CNN is still obsessed with the unfortunate flight ML 370. One cannot turn randomly into CNN broadcasts 24 /7 without either immediately being confronted by meaningless, repetitive and false coverage on this subject or in a minority of cases, maybe it appears within 30 seconds of tuning into CNN.

I said it before—even if the ratings justify it, what about journalistic integrity and professionalism?

CNN’s continued abuse of people’s grief and fears is shameless and nauseating.