Study on ACA cancellations: interesting results

[Statistikhengst]

Study questions Obamacare impact on canceled plans - Sarah Wheaton - POLITICO.com

Millions of the plans that were canceled because they did not meet Affordable Care Act requirements probably would have been canceled anyway — by the policyholders, a new study suggests.

Last fall, as cancellation letters arrived in mailboxes around the country, opponents of the law cited them as evidence that President Barack Obama had lied to Americans when he promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

But most individuals who lost plans probably would not have continued them even without the law, according to the study, which was published online Wednesday in Health Affairs. Its author questions whether those cancellations contributed much to the nation’s ranks of short-term uninsured.

The study looked at people who bought non-group, or individual, insurance plans — a market that was relatively unstable even before Obamacare took effect. Between 2008 and 2011, fewer than half the people who started out with such coverage still had it after a year. And 80 percent of those who changed policies had a new plan within a year, usually through an employer, the study found.

Given this baseline, author Benjamin Sommers says, “the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm.”

Here is the link to the website where the study was published:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2014/04/14/hlthaff.2014.0005

Here is the abstract:

Recent cancellations of nongroup health insurance plans generated much policy debate and raised concerns that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may increase the number of uninsured Americans in the short term. This article provides evidence on the stability of nongroup coverage using US census data for the period 2008–11, before ACA provisions took effect. The principal findings are threefold. First, this market was characterized by high turnover: Only 42 percent of people with nongroup coverage at the outset of the study period retained that coverage after twelve months. Second, 80 percent of people experiencing coverage changes acquired other insurance within a year, most commonly from an employer. Third, turnover varied across groups, with stable coverage more common for whites and self-employed people than for other groups. Turnover was particularly high among adults ages 19–35, with only 21 percent of young adults retaining continuous nongroup coverage for two years. Given estimates from 2012 that 10.8 million people were covered in this market, these results suggest that 6.2 million people leave nongroup coverage annually. This suggests that the nongroup market was characterized by frequent disruptions in coverage before the ACA and that the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm. These results can serve as a useful pre-ACA baseline with which to evaluate the law’s long-term impact on the stability of nongroup coverage.

You can read the entire study HERE (as .txt) or HERE (as. pdf)


I'm not willing to say any more about the study itself until I have read every word of it. People who know me know that I often criticize studies for tweaking numbers or misrepresenting stuff, but until I find evidence to the contrary, I will take the study at face-value.


Just to be clear: Health Affairs is a non-partisan journal and has been around since 1981. Lots of people, lots of pols on both the Left and the Right have quoted from Health Affairs.

So, before anyone gets angry at a study like this, go read it first.

And finally, the usual caveat: this is just one study. Just like only one poll, it doesn't have a huge amount of meaning, but there is usually a kernel of the truth in almost every study.


And - here is information on the author of the study:

Benjamin Sommers | Benjamin Sommers | Harvard School of Public Health

And his resume:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/benjamin-sommers/files/2013/01/Sommers_CV.pdf

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah.....but........Obama!

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am reading the complete study right now. Good to drink coffee over...

 

[mudwhistle]

Study questions Obamacare impact on canceled plans - Sarah Wheaton - POLITICO.com

Millions of the plans that were canceled because they did not meet Affordable Care Act requirements probably would have been canceled anyway — by the policyholders, a new study suggests.

Last fall, as cancellation letters arrived in mailboxes around the country, opponents of the law cited them as evidence that President Barack Obama had lied to Americans when he promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

But most individuals who lost plans probably would not have continued them even without the law, according to the study, which was published online Wednesday in Health Affairs. Its author questions whether those cancellations contributed much to the nation’s ranks of short-term uninsured.

The study looked at people who bought non-group, or individual, insurance plans — a market that was relatively unstable even before Obamacare took effect. Between 2008 and 2011, fewer than half the people who started out with such coverage still had it after a year. And 80 percent of those who changed policies had a new plan within a year, usually through an employer, the study found.

Given this baseline, author Benjamin Sommers says, “the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm.”

Here is the link to the website where the study was published:

Insurance Cancellations In Context: Stability Of Coverage In The Nongroup Market Prior To Health Reform

Here is the abstract:

Recent cancellations of nongroup health insurance plans generated much policy debate and raised concerns that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may increase the number of uninsured Americans in the short term. This article provides evidence on the stability of nongroup coverage using US census data for the period 2008–11, before ACA provisions took effect. The principal findings are threefold. First, this market was characterized by high turnover: Only 42 percent of people with nongroup coverage at the outset of the study period retained that coverage after twelve months. Second, 80 percent of people experiencing coverage changes acquired other insurance within a year, most commonly from an employer. Third, turnover varied across groups, with stable coverage more common for whites and self-employed people than for other groups. Turnover was particularly high among adults ages 19–35, with only 21 percent of young adults retaining continuous nongroup coverage for two years. Given estimates from 2012 that 10.8 million people were covered in this market, these results suggest that 6.2 million people leave nongroup coverage annually. This suggests that the nongroup market was characterized by frequent disruptions in coverage before the ACA and that the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm. These results can serve as a useful pre-ACA baseline with which to evaluate the law’s long-term impact on the stability of nongroup coverage.

You can read the entire study HERE (as .txt) or HERE (as. pdf)


I'm not willing to say any more about the study itself until I have read every word of it. People who know me know that I often criticize studies for tweaking numbers or misrepresenting stuff, but until I find evidence to the contrary, I will take the study at face-value.


Just to be clear: Health Affairs is a non-partisan journal and has been around since 1981. Lots of people, lots of pols on both the Left and the Right have quoted from Health Affairs.

So, before anyone gets angry at a study like this, go read it first.

And finally, the usual caveat: this is just one study. Just like only one poll, it doesn't have a huge amount of meaning, but there is usually a kernel of the truth in almost every study.


And - here is information on the author of the study:

Benjamin Sommers | Benjamin Sommers | Harvard School of Public Health

And his resume:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/benjamin-sommers/files/2013/01/Sommers_CV.pdf

We've gone past the "They weren't cancellation letters. They were all renewal notices". Or the excuse "These stories are all produced by the Koch Brothers made up out of hole-cloth!!!"

All one needs to do is publish an op-ed like this and you give the Obamazombies hope.

This "Study" assumes way too much.

It also says they "probably" would have cancelled them on their own. That's alot to assume. Especially since too many cancer patients have discovered their insurance cancelled.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Study questions Obamacare impact on canceled plans - Sarah Wheaton - POLITICO.com

Millions of the plans that were canceled because they did not meet Affordable Care Act requirements probably would have been canceled anyway — by the policyholders, a new study suggests.

Last fall, as cancellation letters arrived in mailboxes around the country, opponents of the law cited them as evidence that President Barack Obama had lied to Americans when he promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

But most individuals who lost plans probably would not have continued them even without the law, according to the study, which was published online Wednesday in Health Affairs. Its author questions whether those cancellations contributed much to the nation’s ranks of short-term uninsured.

The study looked at people who bought non-group, or individual, insurance plans — a market that was relatively unstable even before Obamacare took effect. Between 2008 and 2011, fewer than half the people who started out with such coverage still had it after a year. And 80 percent of those who changed policies had a new plan within a year, usually through an employer, the study found.

Given this baseline, author Benjamin Sommers says, “the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm.”

Here is the link to the website where the study was published:

Insurance Cancellations In Context: Stability Of Coverage In The Nongroup Market Prior To Health Reform

Here is the abstract:

Recent cancellations of nongroup health insurance plans generated much policy debate and raised concerns that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may increase the number of uninsured Americans in the short term. This article provides evidence on the stability of nongroup coverage using US census data for the period 2008–11, before ACA provisions took effect. The principal findings are threefold. First, this market was characterized by high turnover: Only 42 percent of people with nongroup coverage at the outset of the study period retained that coverage after twelve months. Second, 80 percent of people experiencing coverage changes acquired other insurance within a year, most commonly from an employer. Third, turnover varied across groups, with stable coverage more common for whites and self-employed people than for other groups. Turnover was particularly high among adults ages 19–35, with only 21 percent of young adults retaining continuous nongroup coverage for two years. Given estimates from 2012 that 10.8 million people were covered in this market, these results suggest that 6.2 million people leave nongroup coverage annually. This suggests that the nongroup market was characterized by frequent disruptions in coverage before the ACA and that the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm. These results can serve as a useful pre-ACA baseline with which to evaluate the law’s long-term impact on the stability of nongroup coverage.

You can read the entire study HERE (as .txt) or HERE (as. pdf)


I'm not willing to say any more about the study itself until I have read every word of it. People who know me know that I often criticize studies for tweaking numbers or misrepresenting stuff, but until I find evidence to the contrary, I will take the study at face-value.


Just to be clear: Health Affairs is a non-partisan journal and has been around since 1981. Lots of people, lots of pols on both the Left and the Right have quoted from Health Affairs.

So, before anyone gets angry at a study like this, go read it first.

And finally, the usual caveat: this is just one study. Just like only one poll, it doesn't have a huge amount of meaning, but there is usually a kernel of the truth in almost every study.


And - here is information on the author of the study:

Benjamin Sommers | Benjamin Sommers | Harvard School of Public Health

And his resume:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/benjamin-sommers/files/2013/01/Sommers_CV.pdf

We've gone past the "They weren't cancellation letters. They were all renewal notices". Or the excuse "These stories are all produced by the Koch Brothers made up out of hole-cloth!!!"

All one needs to do is publish an op-ed like this and you give the Obamazombies hope.

This "Study" assumes way too much.

It also says they "probably" would have cancelled them on their own. That's alot to assume. Especially since too many cancer patients have discovered their insurance cancelled.

You did not completely read my op, what? Here, let me help refresh that:

I'm not willing to say any more about the study itself until I have read every word of it. People who know me know that I often criticize studies for tweaking numbers or misrepresenting stuff, but until I find evidence to the contrary, I will take the study at face-value...

...And finally, the usual caveat: this is just one study. Just like only one poll, it doesn't have a huge amount of meaning, but there is usually a kernel of the truth in almost every study.

So, you were saying?

 

[mudwhistle]

Study questions Obamacare impact on canceled plans - Sarah Wheaton - POLITICO.com





Here is the link to the website where the study was published:

Insurance Cancellations In Context: Stability Of Coverage In The Nongroup Market Prior To Health Reform

Here is the abstract:




You can read the entire study HERE (as .txt) or HERE (as. pdf)


I'm not willing to say any more about the study itself until I have read every word of it. People who know me know that I often criticize studies for tweaking numbers or misrepresenting stuff, but until I find evidence to the contrary, I will take the study at face-value.


Just to be clear: Health Affairs is a non-partisan journal and has been around since 1981. Lots of people, lots of pols on both the Left and the Right have quoted from Health Affairs.

So, before anyone gets angry at a study like this, go read it first.

And finally, the usual caveat: this is just one study. Just like only one poll, it doesn't have a huge amount of meaning, but there is usually a kernel of the truth in almost every study.


And - here is information on the author of the study:

Benjamin Sommers | Benjamin Sommers | Harvard School of Public Health

And his resume:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/benjamin-sommers/files/2013/01/Sommers_CV.pdf

We've gone past the "They weren't cancellation letters. They were all renewal notices". Or the excuse "These stories are all produced by the Koch Brothers made up out of hole-cloth!!!"

All one needs to do is publish an op-ed like this and you give the Obamazombies hope.

This "Study" assumes way too much.

It also says they "probably" would have cancelled them on their own. That's alot to assume. Especially since too many cancer patients have discovered their insurance cancelled.

You did not completely read my op, what? Here, let me help refresh that:

I'm not willing to say any more about the study itself until I have read every word of it. People who know me know that I often criticize studies for tweaking numbers or misrepresenting stuff, but until I find evidence to the contrary, I will take the study at face-value...

...And finally, the usual caveat: this is just one study. Just like only one poll, it doesn't have a huge amount of meaning, but there is usually a kernel of the truth in almost every study.

So, you were saying?

I'm saying it assumes too much. We cannot take anyone's word for it. The Dems are desperate to make Obamacare appear acceptable. Nothing that is said about it can be taken at face value. It would take months to check every one of their "Facts" out.

For example; How does the study know that millions of them would have dropped their own insurance anyway. It stretches the bounds of credibility.

nuff said.

 

[Statistikhengst]

We've gone past the "They weren't cancellation letters. They were all renewal notices". Or the excuse "These stories are all produced by the Koch Brothers made up out of hole-cloth!!!"

All one needs to do is publish an op-ed like this and you give the Obamazombies hope.

This "Study" assumes way too much.

It also says they "probably" would have cancelled them on their own. That's alot to assume. Especially since too many cancer patients have discovered their insurance cancelled.

You did not completely read my op, what? Here, let me help refresh that:

I'm not willing to say any more about the study itself until I have read every word of it. People who know me know that I often criticize studies for tweaking numbers or misrepresenting stuff, but until I find evidence to the contrary, I will take the study at face-value...

...And finally, the usual caveat: this is just one study. Just like only one poll, it doesn't have a huge amount of meaning, but there is usually a kernel of the truth in almost every study.

So, you were saying?

I'm saying it assumes too much. We cannot take anyone's word for it. The Dems are desperate to make Obamacare appear acceptable. Nothing that is said about it can be taken at face value. It would take months to check every one of their "Facts" out.

For example; How does the study know that millions of them would have dropped their own insurance anyway. It stretches the bounds of credibility.

nuff said.

Believe me, mud, if I find something not kosher about this study, I am gonna tear it apart from limb to limb, because I hate bogus studies, regardless who publishes them. Right now I am reading all of it and doing some background searching on the study itself.

I am not "desperate" to do anything. I do, however, like to publish data and discuss it. You do understand the difference, I assume.

 

[mudwhistle]

You did not completely read my op, what? Here, let me help refresh that:




So, you were saying?

I'm saying it assumes too much. We cannot take anyone's word for it. The Dems are desperate to make Obamacare appear acceptable. Nothing that is said about it can be taken at face value. It would take months to check every one of their "Facts" out.

For example; How does the study know that millions of them would have dropped their own insurance anyway. It stretches the bounds of credibility.

nuff said.

Believe me, mud, if I find something not kosher about this study, I am gonna tear it apart from limb to limb, because I hate bogus studies, regardless who publishes them. Right now I am reading all of it and doing some background searching on the study itself.

I am not "desperate" to do anything. I do, however, like to publish data and discuss it. You do understand the difference, I assume.

I understand.

You have to be more of a skeptic when it comes to anything that this administration produces. Give them enough time and they'll convince everyone that the rollout was a smashing success. They keep coming up with different excuses and this is just the latest one.

I refuse to accept anyone's word that millions of Americans would have dropped their coverage all at the same time. The reason I refuse to accept this is because this thing has been hidden from the public, parts of it pushed back years to minimize it's damaging effects, wavers granted to political buddies. Congress exempted from it because of the expense.....the list goes on and on.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm saying it assumes too much. We cannot take anyone's word for it. The Dems are desperate to make Obamacare appear acceptable. Nothing that is said about it can be taken at face value. It would take months to check every one of their "Facts" out.

For example; How does the study know that millions of them would have dropped their own insurance anyway. It stretches the bounds of credibility.

nuff said.

Believe me, mud, if I find something not kosher about this study, I am gonna tear it apart from limb to limb, because I hate bogus studies, regardless who publishes them. Right now I am reading all of it and doing some background searching on the study itself.

I am not "desperate" to do anything. I do, however, like to publish data and discuss it. You do understand the difference, I assume.

I understand.

You have to be more of a skeptic when it comes to anything that this administration produces. Give them enough time and they'll convince everyone that the rollout was a smashing success. They keep coming up with different excuses and this is just the latest one.

I refuse to accept anyone's word that millions of Americans would have dropped their coverage all at the same time. The reason I refuse to accept this is because this thing has been hidden from the public, parts of it pushed back years to minimize it's damaging effects, wavers granted to political buddies. Congress exempted from it because of the expense.....the list goes on and on.

If looking at more and more data makes me skeptical, then you will surely notice it. But it's way too easy for you to also dismiss data without taking a real look at it.

I suppose that somewhere in the middle is the best place to be when it comes to this argument.

 

[mudwhistle]

Believe me, mud, if I find something not kosher about this study, I am gonna tear it apart from limb to limb, because I hate bogus studies, regardless who publishes them. Right now I am reading all of it and doing some background searching on the study itself.

I am not "desperate" to do anything. I do, however, like to publish data and discuss it. You do understand the difference, I assume.

I understand.

You have to be more of a skeptic when it comes to anything that this administration produces. Give them enough time and they'll convince everyone that the rollout was a smashing success. They keep coming up with different excuses and this is just the latest one.

I refuse to accept anyone's word that millions of Americans would have dropped their coverage all at the same time. The reason I refuse to accept this is because this thing has been hidden from the public, parts of it pushed back years to minimize it's damaging effects, wavers granted to political buddies. Congress exempted from it because of the expense.....the list goes on and on.

If looking at more and more data makes me skeptical, then you will surely notice it. But it's way too easy for you to also dismiss data without taking a real look at it.

I suppose that somewhere in the middle is the best place to be when it comes to this argument.

Sometimes being in the middle for the sake of not appearing biased only makes you appear gullible.

The White House controls the data, thus controls what it may mean. They have this strange habit of leaving pertinent data out......possibly changing the outcome.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Stat, Rightwinger, LoneLaugher and others:
I think it is more than clear at this point the issue
is "prochoice" and wanting the CHOICE to make decisions about health care
without government imposition, restrictions, and certainly not mandates and fines.

Research and real-life experiences have long shown that
* abortion is not good for women's health and certainly not for the unborn individual
but causes traumatic disruption and longterm aftereffects in most cases
* use of recreational drugs, from pot to alcohol, causes health or safety risks
including correlation with addictive behaviors and risk of damage to other people

But still people want the FREE CHOICE to make these decisions personally
without govt abused in ways we do not CONSENT to impose on or deprive liberties.

The Prolife advocates have offered all manner of research and testimonies,
the "horror stories" of keeping abortion a free choice and not penalizing people for it.
And yet we do not allow bans on this choice, but trust people with responsibility
because we deem
"individual freedom" is more important than any lives that would be saved by law!

Why can't we respect the same for health care choices in general?
Why can't we respect the SAME arguments for "individual freedom" of others
that we ask for ourselves?

On the positive side, there is plenty of research and testimonial experience on
the positive health effects of forgiveness therapy and healing prayer based on this,
where it not only cures the causes of disease and criminal abuse/illness/addiction
but reduces the PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL COST to society/public/taxpayers.

But people WANT FREE CHOICE.

The impact of "requiring" spiritual healing for all people receiving public subsidies on health care would FAR exceed the "benefits of requiring insurance" which does NOT cure disease, does NOT change criminal behavior or addiction as "spiritual healing" has demonstrated.

Why isn't this research being promoted if it does so much to reduce costs of crime
and disease on the public?

Because people want FREE CHOICE, regardless how much greater the benefits would be.
FREE WILL and CONSENT is more important to people.

Even though ALL THE RESEARCH will show that forgiveness and deep spiritual therapy based on this for recovery and cure REDUCES the costs of crime and disease
that otherwise cost priceless lives and billions of dollars wasted on
* incarceration, drug wars
* cancer and other diseases that in SOME CASES have been cured FOR FREE
by natural spiritual therapies to remove the root cause and blocks to healing
* political campaigns for and against beliefs on both sides of these issues
that are equally valid and protected by law, if people would recognize FREE CHOICE

The insurance mandates may help plenty of people.
But such insurance could have still been purchased and negotiated WITHOUT forcing it through govt at the expense of the liberty of many more people who committed no crimes.

If we allow abortion to be a free and unpenalized choice
because we believe that any problems of abortion can be prevented by free choice
WITHOUT taking this choice away from people and putting it in govt hands,

If we trust women with the free choice of something as risky as abortion,
certainly we can trust people with the free choice of something as harmless
as how to pay for our own health care.

Study questions Obamacare impact on canceled plans - Sarah Wheaton - POLITICO.com

Millions of the plans that were canceled because they did not meet Affordable Care Act requirements probably would have been canceled anyway — by the policyholders, a new study suggests.

Last fall, as cancellation letters arrived in mailboxes around the country, opponents of the law cited them as evidence that President Barack Obama had lied to Americans when he promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

But most individuals who lost plans probably would not have continued them even without the law, according to the study, which was published online Wednesday in Health Affairs. Its author questions whether those cancellations contributed much to the nation’s ranks of short-term uninsured.

The study looked at people who bought non-group, or individual, insurance plans — a market that was relatively unstable even before Obamacare took effect. Between 2008 and 2011, fewer than half the people who started out with such coverage still had it after a year. And 80 percent of those who changed policies had a new plan within a year, usually through an employer, the study found.

Given this baseline, author Benjamin Sommers says, “the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm.”

Here is the link to the website where the study was published:

Insurance Cancellations In Context: Stability Of Coverage In The Nongroup Market Prior To Health Reform

Here is the abstract:

Recent cancellations of nongroup health insurance plans generated much policy debate and raised concerns that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may increase the number of uninsured Americans in the short term. This article provides evidence on the stability of nongroup coverage using US census data for the period 2008–11, before ACA provisions took effect. The principal findings are threefold. First, this market was characterized by high turnover: Only 42 percent of people with nongroup coverage at the outset of the study period retained that coverage after twelve months. Second, 80 percent of people experiencing coverage changes acquired other insurance within a year, most commonly from an employer. Third, turnover varied across groups, with stable coverage more common for whites and self-employed people than for other groups. Turnover was particularly high among adults ages 19–35, with only 21 percent of young adults retaining continuous nongroup coverage for two years. Given estimates from 2012 that 10.8 million people were covered in this market, these results suggest that 6.2 million people leave nongroup coverage annually. This suggests that the nongroup market was characterized by frequent disruptions in coverage before the ACA and that the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm. These results can serve as a useful pre-ACA baseline with which to evaluate the law’s long-term impact on the stability of nongroup coverage.

You can read the entire study HERE (as .txt) or HERE (as. pdf)


I'm not willing to say any more about the study itself until I have read every word of it. People who know me know that I often criticize studies for tweaking numbers or misrepresenting stuff, but until I find evidence to the contrary, I will take the study at face-value.


Just to be clear: Health Affairs is a non-partisan journal and has been around since 1981. Lots of people, lots of pols on both the Left and the Right have quoted from Health Affairs.

So, before anyone gets angry at a study like this, go read it first.

And finally, the usual caveat: this is just one study. Just like only one poll, it doesn't have a huge amount of meaning, but there is usually a kernel of the truth in almost every study.


And - here is information on the author of the study:

Benjamin Sommers | Benjamin Sommers | Harvard School of Public Health

And his resume:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/benjamin-sommers/files/2013/01/Sommers_CV.pdf

 

[Statistikhengst]

I understand.

You have to be more of a skeptic when it comes to anything that this administration produces. Give them enough time and they'll convince everyone that the rollout was a smashing success. They keep coming up with different excuses and this is just the latest one.

I refuse to accept anyone's word that millions of Americans would have dropped their coverage all at the same time. The reason I refuse to accept this is because this thing has been hidden from the public, parts of it pushed back years to minimize it's damaging effects, wavers granted to political buddies. Congress exempted from it because of the expense.....the list goes on and on.

If looking at more and more data makes me skeptical, then you will surely notice it. But it's way too easy for you to also dismiss data without taking a real look at it.

I suppose that somewhere in the middle is the best place to be when it comes to this argument.

Sometimes being in the middle for the sake of not appearing biased only makes you appear gullible.

The White House controls the data, thus controls what it may mean. They have this strange habit of leaving pertinent data out......possibly changing the outcome.

The White House does not control data from independent agencies.

 

[mudwhistle]

If looking at more and more data makes me skeptical, then you will surely notice it. But it's way too easy for you to also dismiss data without taking a real look at it.

I suppose that somewhere in the middle is the best place to be when it comes to this argument.

Sometimes being in the middle for the sake of not appearing biased only makes you appear gullible.

The White House controls the data, thus controls what it may mean. They have this strange habit of leaving pertinent data out......possibly changing the outcome.

The White House does not control data from independent agencies.

Independent is just a word.

Even if they were truly independent they still have to rely on government data....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL @ they would have cancelled it anyway!

You see these are kind of sheeple that a Progressive Dictator needs to have complete, unquestioning and total control.

 

[Howey]

All one needs to do is publish an op-ed like this and you give the Obamazombies hope.

This "Study" assumes way too much.

It also says they "probably" would have cancelled them on their own. That's alot to assume. Especially since too many cancer patients have discovered their insurance cancelled.

Are you saying the study was an op-ed?????

 

[mudwhistle]

All one needs to do is publish an op-ed like this and you give the Obamazombies hope.

This "Study" assumes way too much.

It also says they "probably" would have cancelled them on their own. That's alot to assume. Especially since too many cancer patients have discovered their insurance cancelled.

Are you saying the study was an op-ed?????

The premise of the "study" is an example of a pre-drawn conclusion.

Besides, how does one figure out what millions of people plan on doing before they know they have to do it?

 

[JimH52]

Dear Stat, Rightwinger, LoneLaugher and others:
I think it is more than clear at this point the issue
is "prochoice" and wanting the CHOICE to make decisions about health care
without government imposition, restrictions, and certainly not mandates and fines.

Research and real-life experiences have long shown that
* abortion is not good for women's health and certainly not for the unborn individual
but causes traumatic disruption and longterm aftereffects in most cases
* use of recreational drugs, from pot to alcohol, causes health or safety risks
including correlation with addictive behaviors and risk of damage to other people

But still people want the FREE CHOICE to make these decisions personally
without govt abused in ways we do not CONSENT to impose on or deprive liberties.

The Prolife advocates have offered all manner of research and testimonies,
the "horror stories" of keeping abortion a free choice and not penalizing people for it.
And yet we do not allow bans on this choice, but trust people with responsibility
because we deem
"individual freedom" is more important than any lives that would be saved by law!

Why can't we respect the same for health care choices in general?
Why can't we respect the SAME arguments for "individual freedom" of others
that we ask for ourselves?

On the positive side, there is plenty of research and testimonial experience on
the positive health effects of forgiveness therapy and healing prayer based on this,
where it not only cures the causes of disease and criminal abuse/illness/addiction
but reduces the PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL COST to society/public/taxpayers.

But people WANT FREE CHOICE.

The impact of "requiring" spiritual healing for all people receiving public subsidies on health care would FAR exceed the "benefits of requiring insurance" which does NOT cure disease, does NOT change criminal behavior or addiction as "spiritual healing" has demonstrated.

Why isn't this research being promoted if it does so much to reduce costs of crime
and disease on the public?

Because people want FREE CHOICE, regardless how much greater the benefits would be.
FREE WILL and CONSENT is more important to people.

Even though ALL THE RESEARCH will show that forgiveness and deep spiritual therapy based on this for recovery and cure REDUCES the costs of crime and disease
that otherwise cost priceless lives and billions of dollars wasted on
* incarceration, drug wars
* cancer and other diseases that in SOME CASES have been cured FOR FREE
by natural spiritual therapies to remove the root cause and blocks to healing
* political campaigns for and against beliefs on both sides of these issues
that are equally valid and protected by law, if people would recognize FREE CHOICE

The insurance mandates may help plenty of people.
But such insurance could have still been purchased and negotiated WITHOUT forcing it through govt at the expense of the liberty of many more people who committed no crimes.

If we allow abortion to be a free and unpenalized choice
because we believe that any problems of abortion can be prevented by free choice
WITHOUT taking this choice away from people and putting it in govt hands,

If we trust women with the free choice of something as risky as abortion,
certainly we can trust people with the free choice of something as harmless
as how to pay for our own health care.

Study questions Obamacare impact on canceled plans - Sarah Wheaton - POLITICO.com

Millions of the plans that were canceled because they did not meet Affordable Care Act requirements probably would have been canceled anyway — by the policyholders, a new study suggests.

Last fall, as cancellation letters arrived in mailboxes around the country, opponents of the law cited them as evidence that President Barack Obama had lied to Americans when he promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

But most individuals who lost plans probably would not have continued them even without the law, according to the study, which was published online Wednesday in Health Affairs. Its author questions whether those cancellations contributed much to the nation’s ranks of short-term uninsured.

The study looked at people who bought non-group, or individual, insurance plans — a market that was relatively unstable even before Obamacare took effect. Between 2008 and 2011, fewer than half the people who started out with such coverage still had it after a year. And 80 percent of those who changed policies had a new plan within a year, usually through an employer, the study found.

Given this baseline, author Benjamin Sommers says, “the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm.”

Here is the link to the website where the study was published:

Insurance Cancellations In Context: Stability Of Coverage In The Nongroup Market Prior To Health Reform

Here is the abstract:

Recent cancellations of nongroup health insurance plans generated much policy debate and raised concerns that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may increase the number of uninsured Americans in the short term. This article provides evidence on the stability of nongroup coverage using US census data for the period 2008–11, before ACA provisions took effect. The principal findings are threefold. First, this market was characterized by high turnover: Only 42 percent of people with nongroup coverage at the outset of the study period retained that coverage after twelve months. Second, 80 percent of people experiencing coverage changes acquired other insurance within a year, most commonly from an employer. Third, turnover varied across groups, with stable coverage more common for whites and self-employed people than for other groups. Turnover was particularly high among adults ages 19–35, with only 21 percent of young adults retaining continuous nongroup coverage for two years. Given estimates from 2012 that 10.8 million people were covered in this market, these results suggest that 6.2 million people leave nongroup coverage annually. This suggests that the nongroup market was characterized by frequent disruptions in coverage before the ACA and that the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm. These results can serve as a useful pre-ACA baseline with which to evaluate the law’s long-term impact on the stability of nongroup coverage.

You can read the entire study HERE (as .txt) or HERE (as. pdf)


I'm not willing to say any more about the study itself until I have read every word of it. People who know me know that I often criticize studies for tweaking numbers or misrepresenting stuff, but until I find evidence to the contrary, I will take the study at face-value.


Just to be clear: Health Affairs is a non-partisan journal and has been around since 1981. Lots of people, lots of pols on both the Left and the Right have quoted from Health Affairs.

So, before anyone gets angry at a study like this, go read it first.

And finally, the usual caveat: this is just one study. Just like only one poll, it doesn't have a huge amount of meaning, but there is usually a kernel of the truth in almost every study.


And - here is information on the author of the study:

Benjamin Sommers | Benjamin Sommers | Harvard School of Public Health

And his resume:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/benjamin-sommers/files/2013/01/Sommers_CV.pdf

Okay, then should emergency rooms have the choice to refuse freeloaders who show up without insurance. It is a Choice thing you know...

 

[Rozman]

Obama screwed us...
But it's OK.
He was looking out for us.

 

[Sunshine]

I'm saying it assumes too much. We cannot take anyone's word for it. The Dems are desperate to make Obamacare appear acceptable. Nothing that is said about it can be taken at face value. It would take months to check every one of their "Facts" out.

For example; How does the study know that millions of them would have dropped their own insurance anyway. It stretches the bounds of credibility.

nuff said.

Believe me, mud, if I find something not kosher about this study, I am gonna tear it apart from limb to limb, because I hate bogus studies, regardless who publishes them. Right now I am reading all of it and doing some background searching on the study itself.

I am not "desperate" to do anything. I do, however, like to publish data and discuss it. You do understand the difference, I assume.

I understand.

You have to be more of a skeptic when it comes to anything that this administration produces. Give them enough time and they'll convince everyone that the rollout was a smashing success. They keep coming up with different excuses and this is just the latest one.

I refuse to accept anyone's word that millions of Americans would have dropped their coverage all at the same time. The reason I refuse to accept this is because this thing has been hidden from the public, parts of it pushed back years to minimize it's damaging effects, wavers granted to political buddies. Congress exempted from it because of the expense.....the list goes on and on.

Mud, the posted 'study' is a farce because n=notadmanedthing. No facts were used.

From the OP article:

Writing in Health Affairs, Sommers says his examination of data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation showed that nongroup coverage is transitional for most people. They often buy it while between jobs or waiting for employer benefits to kick in. A year after dropping their individual plans, Sommers found, 50 percent had employer-sponsored insurance, 20 percent had reacquired nongroup coverage, 6 percent joined Medicare or Medicaid, and 4 percent had other coverage.

However, Sommers did identify a group most likely to face a genuine, unwanted disruption from the ACA’s requirements: white, self-employed Americans of ages 36-64. They were likely to maintain their nongroup coverage for three years or more.


Read more: Study questions Obamacare impact on canceled plans - Sarah Wheaton - POLITICO.com

No one was interviewed and asked if they would have dropped anyway, the only thing actually done was data on who 'likely' had a 'transitional' policy was 'studied'. This so called study is inference and nothing more. No subjects. No statistics. This 'study' is hooey! It is bogus, and isn't worth the blips it took to record it.

I had research and statistics in both my undergraduate and graduate programs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay, then should emergency rooms have the choice to refuse freeloaders who show up without insurance. It is a Choice thing you know...

Maybe the government leaders should have taken on the task of finding out
how to hold the users of services accountable, instead of depriving liberties of all citizens.

But then again, if they can't even hold themselves accountable for public spending,
could that be why they aren't able to hold anyone else accountable?

Why punish law abiding citizens for govt inability to go after wrongdoers?
We already have enough of that going on with prisons and health care costs there;
why multiply the burden on taxpayers? Why not hold the people accountable
for costs who actually incur them?