- Thread starter
- #11
Does that mean that the law was successful? Or does that mean that it was unsuccessful?
There's a case for both sides based upon those stats ... and coincidentally, it proves the point that Mitt Romney made about poor people.
Well, interesting... I guess it means the law was successful in creating universal coverage, successful in covering the poor through expanded medicaid to 133% of FPL and successful in giving subsidies to many. However, it was unsuccessful in reigning in underlying medical costs, controlling premium that escalates in areas where Guaranteed-Issue is already in force, and controlling taxes to pay for all of this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So from what I gather, they are only looking at the pool which includes currently uninsured, or current IFP client. Correct?
If so, the other 80% make too much money, and will gladly purchase from a private health exchange. 50 million uninsured = 40 million prospects. my zip was in the teens
methodology states:
The percentages shown represent the share of people under age 65 who are in families with incomes up to 400% of federal poverty who at the time they were surveyed either (1) were not covered by public or private health insurance or (2) were covered by health insurance that they purchased directly and were not covered by any other type of public or private health insurance.
Thanks for finding the basis of the report. I'm not sure if "covered by health insurance that they purchased directly..." means IFP only or IFP and employer-sponsored. If it doesn't include employer-sponsored, then there might be many more that get subsidies, and hence the reason why small group might implode. However, if small group implodes that would also mean many employees who DON'T get subsidies and who enter the private IFP market outside the exchanges.
Last edited: