Denver Post: Colorado ACA Approval Rating Drops Below 40%

Mike Rosen asks if Senator Udall should lose his job in November because of voting for it? Seems unfair to me to fire Udall over that. He didn't know then how incompetent this administration would be with such a major project. Fire Udall for other reasons.

"The latest Obamacare numbers are in, and they may disappoint the doomsayers.

Another 1.2 million people signed up for private health care through the new insurance exchanges in January, boosting total enrollment to 3.3 million—a 53% increase in one month. The current trend, as shown in the accompanying graph, looks less like a crashing train than a fleet of jets taking flight."

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/021314-aca-update-01.png?itok=HMjCW7Hy

Oh darn...

Perhaps someone who jazzer doesn't have on ignore (such a coward), could ask her for the graph that shows how many people have actually paid for a policy. And how about a graph that shows what percentage of sign ups didn't have insurance before the ACA (I think it's around 11%)

Don't you hate it when a well-crafted, focus-group approved knuckle-dragger talking point starts to unravel? (I predict they'll still be trying to repeal it in 2016...) :LMAO: lol

LadyJazzer wrote: Don't you hate it when a well-crafted, focus-group approved knuckle-dragger talking point starts to unravel? Oh darn...

Here's the data that the HHS should be releasing...

An accurate accounting should consist of : wrote: 1) How many people who signed up have made their first and/or second premium payments?

2) How many who signed up through Medicare were already eligible for Medicare and would have been signing up for Medicare even if the ACA didn't exist?

3) How many of the new millennial's (18 to 29) have signed up (Huffington Post says the majority of the new millennial's won't sign up http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mariel-kl ... 01266.html ... and a Harvard study supports that contention) ?

4) How many very sick and heavily subsidized people have sign up?

5) Of those that have signed up, how many were able to keep their policies and their network of doctors if they wanted those policies and doctors?

6) How many people have registered for ACA coverage but have not completed their enrollment as of yet.

And add another factor to the bigger picture that the Obama administration has failed to address. The part of the Healthcare.gov system that calculates subsidies that need to be paid to the insurance companies has not even been completed yet. The part of the Healthcare.gov system that enable people to add and modify their enrollment information has not been completed yet. And the part of the Healthcare.gov system that coordinates enrollment data with IRS data has not been completed yet.

The factors that will make or break the ACA are composed of a delicate balance of healthy people, people who can afford the out of pocket expenses, financial penalties and numerous mandates for both employers, employees and out of work people. And along with the still nonexistent software back end functionality the ACA is no where near balanced.

That is the bigger picture and the Obama administration has not presented the country with an accurate portrait of the health of the ACA. Three and 1/3 million people in the ACA pool means nothing unless you know the breakdown of that number in relation to the 6 points presented above.

Lady Jazzer couldn't give you a specific answer to a single one of the above questions, because she doesn't have those answers. Instead she relies on low-information MSNBC hogwash designed to deflect from the real issues surrounding the implementation of the ACA.

Don't you hate it when well-crafted, propagandized charts, graphs and empty statistics starts to unravel? Oh darn...

LadyJazzer wrote:

"The latest Obamacare numbers are in, and they may disappoint the doomsayers.

Another 1.2 million people signed up for private health care through the new insurance exchanges in January, boosting total enrollment to 3.3 million—a 53% increase in one month. The current trend, as shown in the accompanying graph, looks less like a crashing train than a fleet of jets taking flight."

[thumbnailpop:17autev9] www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/e...01.png?itok=HMjCW7Hy [/thumbnailpop:17autev9]

Oh darn...

And while we are at it, let's just see how the figures on that graft actually play out when looking at the bigger picture.

ObamaCare Enrollment Slows To Crawl, State Data Show By
JED GRAHAM, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 02/10/2014 06:13 PM ET

With less than seven weeks of open enrollment to go, ObamaCare enrollment — and payments — have slowed to a near-crawl in some states.

Minnesota's exchange enrollment goal of 67,000 seemed within reach on Jan. 4, when signups stood at 25,860.

But after surging by more than 4,000 per week in the prior five weeks, signups collapsed back to November's pace of less than 700 per week.

As of Feb. 1, Nevada had just 14,999 paid enrollees — vs. the state's March 31 goal of 115,000.

Washington state, meanwhile, was slightly more than halfway to its goal of 340,000 signups — but only 88,071 had paid as of Feb. 1.

The January data available from a handful of states raise new doubts about whether ObamaCare's downgraded first-year prospects are still too optimistic.

...

Some policy analysts expect the Obama administration to suspend the individual mandate in 2014 for everyone, once the March 31 deadline is passed.

[read the whole article at...]
http://news.investors.com/politics-obam ... argets.htm

This is what real statistics look like versus low-information propaganda release through Obama's public relations firm MSNBC.

And while we are at it... here's the rest of the story about Lady Jazzer's chart above...

An internal HHS memo, from September 2013, outlines monthly enrollment targets for the ACA’s first open enrollment period.[2] While the projection was never confirmed as official by HHS, it represents a possible path to the administration’s goal. In the month of January, 1.1 million Americans enrolled in the health insurance exchanges, exceeding for first time the monthly enrollment predicted in the HHS memo. However, the total enrollment of 3.3 million, over the first four months of implementation, is only 75 percent of the 4.4 million total enrollee goal set by HHS.

Using enrollment in Medicare Part D stand-alone drug plans when the program began in 2006, we can better account for spikes and lulls. Part D had a similar timeline: enrollment began in November of 2005, with a peak in sign-ups before the New Year and another surge before open enrollment closed in the spring.[3] While the monthly enrollment exceeded that assumed by the Medicare Part D trajectory, a total of 4.9 million people would need to be signed up after the first four months of the program in order to meet the administration’s goal of 7 million total enrollees, still nearly 50 percent greater than actual enrollment to date.

Assuming a linear enrollment trend, 4.8 million people would need to be signed up by the end of January—roughly 45 percent more than the actual enrollment reported by HHS—in order to meet the targeted 7 million.

If this trend continues and the exchanges meet the administrations total enrollment goal, young adult enrollment will be short by roughly 1 million.[4]

http://americanactionforum.org/research ... -reportJan

Lady Jazzer gets her "story" from a low-information source like MSNBC, and then she reports it here, but she fails to give you the truthful big picture.

That's what happens when you go through life with rose colored glasses.

LadyJazzer wrote:

"The latest Obamacare numbers are in, and they may disappoint the doomsayers.

Another 1.2 million people signed up for private health care through the new insurance exchanges in January, boosting total enrollment to 3.3 million—a 53% increase in one month. The current trend, as shown in the accompanying graph, looks less like a crashing train than a fleet of jets taking flight."

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/021314-aca-update-01.png?itok=HMjCW7Hy

Oh darn...

Whoops, forgot to vet your pretty graph again. Don't your hate when your talking points masquerading as journalism are exposed?

FredHayek wrote: Whoops, forgot to vet your pretty graph again. Don't your hate when your talking points masquerading as journalism are exposed?

:rofllol :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol

I stand by 'em... Facts don't change...Right-wing talking-points do.

ACA numbers keep rising, and all the bullsh*t talking-ponts from the Koch Brothers, Club For Growth, and the TeaBagger Party can't change it.