Follow by Email

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

New York Times, "U.S. Cites Rise in Health Plan Signups as Sebelius Testifies": Sugarcoating a Disaster

In a lead New York Times article entitled "U.S. Cites Rise in Health Plan Signups as Sebelius Testifies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/us/politics/health-care-law.html?hpw&rref=politics), Robert Pear begins by observing:

"The number of people selecting health insurance plans in the federal and state marketplaces increased last month at a brisk pace, bringing the overall figure to nearly 365,000, the Obama administration said on Wednesday. The November number was more than double the one for October, but still well below the administration’s goal."

Okay, how much "well below the administration's goal"? Fifteen paragraphs later, we are informed:

"The numbers are running behind enrollment targets developed by the administration for its own use. Federal officials were projecting that 1.2 million people would have enrolled by now through the federal and state exchanges, according to a memo prepared by the Health and Human Services Department in early September."

Several queries:

  • Do "selected" and "enrolled" mean the same thing?
  • Does "selected" mean that something has actually been finalized and paid for?
  • Have insurance companies been accurately informed that 365,000 of their policies have been "selected," or does the 365,000 figure include persons who think they have "selected" a policy, but the insurance companies are unaware of such choice owing to the system's back-end problems?
Bottom line: Nowhere near seven million people will have "enrolled" (not merely "selected" health insurance plans) in Obamacare by the end of the Obama administration's initial enrollment period ending on March 31, 2014.

What then? Yup, a disaster in the making.

2 comments:

  1. Jeff, does the NYT post your comments?
    I just commented (or rather tried) and .. predictably my comment wasn't posted.
    Without any explanation. How can I dumb myself down to be honored?
    It is definitely a propaganda rag now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The NYT often refused to publish my comments, and this is the reason I started this blog. Even after I complained to Andrew Rosenthal, particularly regarding their publication of rabidly anti-Semitic comments, nothing changed.

      Just a few days ago, I tried to post a comment on Nicholas Kristof's blog. He requested that readers ask him "anything." I asked about his retweet of a message referring to AIPAC as one of "the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies." The comment was not published. Bottom line: The NYT's "moderators" are anything but moderate.

      Delete