We still can't get honest ObamaCare statistics

In response to Less than 13K Sign Up for Nevada Health Exchange:

I notice the Administration is claiming that it finally got a million enrollments nationwide – which, if true, would still be a horrific failure.  That’s not even a third of the way to their year-end target number, not even 20% of the enrollments they said they’d have by April.  

It also doesn’t seem terribly impressive in light of Obama’s claims that 40 to 50 million Americans were crying out for coverage they just couldn’t get before the government seized control of the insurance industry.  How come only a million members of that vast horde could be troubled to sign up for coverage beginning January 2014?  Take away the six million people who lost coverage they liked because of ObamaCare, and even if we assume a healthy share of the six million were able to make arrangements with their old providers without going through the buggy exchanges, we’re almost certainly still in the hole.  More people will be uninsured at the end of that crazy retroactive-coverage payment grace period in mid-January than were uninsured before ObamaCare launched.

And that’s assuming you believe the Administration’s coverage figures, which nobody should, period.  It’s amazing anyone in the mainstream media is willing to relay those claims with a straight face, given Team Obama’s history of counting incomplete shopping cart data as “enrollment,” counting Medicaid applicants as ObamaCare enrollees, and ignoring the inconvenient fact that only fully processed policies with the first premium paid are valid.  

It’s also remarkable that anyone in the media is willing to accept the Administration’s ridiculous lies that it can’t compile more accurate statistics, or give us the demographic breakdown we need to know if ObamaCare will be sustainable.  I guess we’ll have to wait for 2017’s tell-all books from ex-HHS employees to get the full story of how the Administration was able to pretend its billion-dollar system couldn’t produce the kind of report computers have routinely been chugging out since the Seventies.

The sad state of affairs in Nevada should remind us of one more inconvenient fact about ObamaCare: it’s a state-by-state affair, even for the bulk of the states, which are using the federal exchange.  ObamaCare might prove to be more-or-less sustainable in states like Massachusetts (which already had a market weird enough to give us Romneycare, although I noted with a mixture of amusement and amazement that the ObamaCare rollout was botched badly enough in Massachusetts to make Romneycare look like a frigging miracle by comparison.)  

But it could simultaneously prove to be an unsustainable disaster, with finances bad enough to force insurance providers to abandon the market, in states like Nevada… or California.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.