So it's understandable that the HHS is not prepared to release any figures on the number of previously uninsured Americans who have become insured under Obamacare. They've got figures on lots of other stuff, though, so we have that going for us.
I plead to being conflicted on this aspect of Obamacare "transparency."
On the one hand, of course they have the numbers concerning who's a returning insuree (approximately zero, since this is a new program), who's a re-insuree from having had a policy canceled out from under them, who's a re-insuree from having had an employer-provided policy canceled/priced out from under them, the total number of enrollees (in the sense of having paid the premium, not only having "signed up" for one but not yet paid); these are the data the backend of ObamaMart was supposed to report to the "insurers" so the latter could begin "insuring" and claim the subsidy payments. And from these data it's easy to get an accurate estimate of the number of truly de novo insurees who've enrolled.
From this I'd conclude that all of the Obama administration folks who comment on this subject are lying through their teeth when they deny having the numbers--they have them; they're just withholding them.
But.
The fact is, the backend isn't working and isn't expected to work for another several weeks. So maybe these folks really don't have those numbers, and they're telling the truth when they say they don't have those numbers.
But.
What I've seen (which isn't everything available by any stretch) indicates that all those data are, in fact, being collected into the databases; what's not working on the backend is an ability automatically to sort across the several databases and an ability to transmit the requisite data to the "insurance" companies.
If that part is true, the data actually are available, it just takes a more cumbersome search of them, perhaps a manual search with a series of (for instance) SQL commands akin to SELECT [variable] FROM [Table] WHERE....
Thus, I'm still spring-loaded to conclude that Obama administration personnel are lying through their teeth, especially given their history of automatically lying. Just not beyond reasonable doubt. But well beyond a preponderance of the evidence.
3 comments:
I plead to being conflicted on this aspect of Obamacare "transparency."
On the one hand, of course they have the numbers concerning who's a returning insuree (approximately zero, since this is a new program), who's a re-insuree from having had a policy canceled out from under them, who's a re-insuree from having had an employer-provided policy canceled/priced out from under them, the total number of enrollees (in the sense of having paid the premium, not only having "signed up" for one but not yet paid); these are the data the backend of ObamaMart was supposed to report to the "insurers" so the latter could begin "insuring" and claim the subsidy payments. And from these data it's easy to get an accurate estimate of the number of truly de novo insurees who've enrolled.
From this I'd conclude that all of the Obama administration folks who comment on this subject are lying through their teeth when they deny having the numbers--they have them; they're just withholding them.
But.
The fact is, the backend isn't working and isn't expected to work for another several weeks. So maybe these folks really don't have those numbers, and they're telling the truth when they say they don't have those numbers.
But.
What I've seen (which isn't everything available by any stretch) indicates that all those data are, in fact, being collected into the databases; what's not working on the backend is an ability automatically to sort across the several databases and an ability to transmit the requisite data to the "insurance" companies.
If that part is true, the data actually are available, it just takes a more cumbersome search of them, perhaps a manual search with a series of (for instance) SQL commands akin to SELECT [variable] FROM [Table] WHERE....
Thus, I'm still spring-loaded to conclude that Obama administration personnel are lying through their teeth, especially given their history of automatically lying. Just not beyond reasonable doubt. But well beyond a preponderance of the evidence.
Eric Hines
If it were good news, is there any doubt whether they'd figure out a way to make and publish the calculation?
If they were competent to do that, absolutely.
However, they seem to have left their technical expertise entirely in their campaign arm and brought none of them into the government.
On the other hand, maybe those guys know something about being trapped in a government job....
Eric Hines
Post a Comment